Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.28 seconds)
Management Of Jhabban Lal Dav Sr ... vs K M Yadav & Anr on 31 October, 2018 cites

Crescent Dyes And Chemicals Ltd. vs Ram Naresh Tripathi on 16 December, 1992

"12. It is, therefore, clear from the above case law that the right to be represented through counsel or agent can be restricted, controlled or regulated by statute, rules, regulations or Standing Orders. A delinquent has no right to be represented through counsel or agent unless the law specifically confers such a right. The requirement of the rule of natural justice insofar as the delinquent's right of hearing is concerned, cannot and does not extend to a right to be represented through counsel or agent. In the instant case the delinquent's right to representation was regulated by the Standing Orders which permitted a clerk or a workman working with him in the same LPA Nos. 603 & 321 of 2018 Page 9 of 14 department to represent him and this right stood expanded on Sections 21 and 22(ii) permitting representation through an officer, staff-member or a member of the Union, albeit on being authorised by the State Government. The object and purpose of such provisions is to ensure that the domestic enquiry is completed with despatch and is not prolonged endlessly. Secondly, when the person defending the delinquent is from the department or establishment in which the delinquent is working he would be well conversant with the working of that department and the relevant rules and would, therefore, be able to render satisfactory service to the delinquent. Thirdly, not only would the entire proceedings be completed quickly but also inexpensively. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that the Standing Order or Section 22(ii) of the Act conflicts with the principles of natural justice."
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 142 - Full Document

Dtc vs Prem Singh on 9 February, 2015

He also relied on the decisions in DTC v. Prem Singh 2015 V AD (Del) 566 and State of Tamil Nadu v. S. Subramaniam AIR 1996 SC 1232, to urge that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in re-appreciating the evidence and coming to a different conclusion on the merits of the case. Learned counsel for the School urged that the charges were grave and the employee was not at all prejudiced by the denial of DA to him since he participated in the inquiry and cross- examined all the witnesses himself. He further urged the employee ought not to have waited for the conclusion of the inquiry to raise an objection against the denial of a DA to him. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in directing a de novo inquiry.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - D Sharma - Full Document

S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors on 18 September, 1980

The observations of the Supreme Court in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980) 4 SCC 379 that "The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudiced to any man and proof of prejudice independently a proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary" was held to be subject to the dicta of the Constitution Bench in Managing Director, ECIL v B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727. The real test was whether the denial of natural justice resulted in prejudice to the delinquent employee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 1083 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993

(b) In the case of violation of a procedural provisional which is of a mandatory character, it has to be ascertained whether the provision is conceived in the interest of the person proceeded against or in publicinterest. If it is found to be the former, then it must be seen whether the delinquent officer has waived the said requirement, either expressly or by his conduct. If he is found to have waived its then the order of punishment cannot be set aside on the ground of said violation. If, on the other hand, it is found that the delinquent officer/employee has not it or that the provision could not be waived by him, then the LPA Nos. 603 & 321 of 2018 Page 7 of 14 Court or Tribunal should make appropriate directions [include the setting aside of the order of punishment], keeping in mind the approach adopted by the Constitution Bench in B.Karunakar, (supra). The ultimate test is always the same, viz., test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing, as it may be called.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document

Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2005

8. Before us learned counsel appearing for the school urged, on the basis of the decisions in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma 1997 LLR 268, Crecent Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi 1993 LLR 97, S.L.Tagra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1998 LLR 327, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union 1999 SCC (L&S) 361, Hombe Gowda EDN Trust v. State of Karnataka & Ors. 2006 LLR 141, Parimal Kumar Dutta v. Apeejay School [decision dated 20th April 2010 of a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 2063 of 2010] that the denial of a DA to a delinquent employee in a disciplinary inquiry would not be in violation of principles of natural justice particularly when the Rules are silent on that aspect.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 163 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next