Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.51 seconds)Anant R Kulkarni vs Y.P.Education Society & Ors on 26 April, 2013
46. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Shri Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P.
Education Society & Ors., reported at 2013 (3) ALL MR 952
(S.C.). Paragraph No. 10 of the said judgment reads as under :-
Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
But where the person is dismissed
from service, say, without supplying him a copy of the
enquiry officer's report (Managing Director, ECIL v. B.
Karunakar, (supra) or without affording him a due
opportunity of cross-examining a witness (K.L.
Tripathi, (supra) it would be a case falling in the latter
category -violation of a facet of the said rule of natural
justice -in which case, the validity of the order has to
be tested on the touchstone of prejudice, i.e., whether,
all in all, the person concerned did or did not have a
fair hearing. It would not be correct in the light of the
above decision to say that for any and every violation
of a facet of natural justice or of a rule incorporating
such facet, the order passed is altogether void and
ought to be set aside without further enquiry.
Section 11 in The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 [Entire Act]
Section 99 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Saindranath S/O Jagannath Jawanjal vs Pratibha Shikshan Sanstha, Through Its ... on 10 April, 2007
Saindranath Jawanjal vs. Pratibha Shikshan Sanstha, has
had to say thus;
U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd vs P.C. Chaturvedi And Ors on 3 October, 2005
30. The Apex Court, the in the case of Indra Bhanu Gaur V.
Committee, Management of M.M. Degree College, (2004) 1 SCC
281, State of M.P. v. Shankarlal, (2008) 2 SCC 55 and U.P. State
Textile Corpn. Ltd. v. P.C. Chaturvedi, (2005) 8 SCC 211 , has laid
down law that merely because suspension allowance is not paid,
would not amount to denial of opportunity and would not vitiate
the departmental proceedings, per-se. Unless prejudice was
shown and establish, mere non payment of subsistence allowance
cannot ipso-facto be a ground to vitiate the proceedings in every
case. I am not required to deal with this issue since I am setting
aside the enquiry on account of defective constitution of the
committee and failure on the part of the management to follow
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 00:01:04 :::
28
2438.2012 WP
the prescription set out in Rule 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the MEPS
Rules, 1981.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
The compliance of such rules
and the failure partly thereof fell for consideration by
the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Patiyala
and Ors. v. S.K. Sharma and it was stated, inter alia,
as under:
Yavatmal Islamia Anglo Urdu vs Mujib Ahmed Abbas Ali on 16 October, 2009
But where the person is dismissed
from service, say, without supplying him a copy of the
enquiry officer's report (Managing Director, ECIL v. B.
Karunakar, (supra) or without affording him a due
opportunity of cross-examining a witness (K.L.
Tripathi, (supra) it would be a case falling in the latter
category -violation of a facet of the said rule of natural
justice -in which case, the validity of the order has to
be tested on the touchstone of prejudice, i.e., whether,
all in all, the person concerned did or did not have a
fair hearing. It would not be correct in the light of the
above decision to say that for any and every violation
of a facet of natural justice or of a rule incorporating
such facet, the order passed is altogether void and
ought to be set aside without further enquiry.