Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (1.26 seconds)State Of Haryana & Anr vs Ram Chander & Anr on 9 May, 1997
A Full Bench of this Court in The State of
Haryana and others v. Shri Ram Chander, 1976(2)
SLR 690 has held that there is no bar against the
receipt of hearsay evidence by domestic tribunals. It
has been held that the enquiry officer would be
justified in acting upon the evidence of the checkers
stating these facts even though the passengers
themselves are not examined as witnesses. A finding
of guilt arrived at by him would not be based on pure
hearsay. It would be based on the evidence of the
checker that he found passengers travelling without
tickets and the statements made by the passengers to
the checker at the time of checking. The following
observations would be relevant:-
State Of Haryana And Anr. vs Rattan Singh on 22 March, 1977
The first Appellate Court set aside the order of termination
only on the ground that the inspectors have not been examined in the
inquiry proceedings. Such finding is against the judgment of the
Hon'ble supreme Court referred to above as well as the Full Bench
judgment of this Court in Rattan Singh's case supra.
State Of Punjab vs Madan Lal on 5 March, 2009
In view of the said fact and relying upon the judgment
passed in State of Punjab v. Madan Lal, RSA No. 146 of 1973 decided
on 12.4.1983, the order of termination was set aside.
Union Of India vs T. R. Varma on 18 September, 1957
"10. Now, it is no doubt true that the evidence of the
respondent and his witnesses was not taken in the
mode prescribed in the Evidence Act; but that Act has
no application to enquiries conducted by tribunals,
even though they may be judicial in character. The
law requires that such tribunals should observe rules
of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry, and if
they do so, their decision is not liable to be
impeached on the ground that the procedure followed
was not in accordance with that, which obtains in a
court of law. Stating it broadly and without intending
it to be exhaustive, it may be observed that rules of
natural justice require that a party should have the
opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on
which he relies, that the evidence of the opponent
should be taken in his presence, and that he should be
given the opportunity of cross-examining the
witnesses examined by that party, and that no
materials should be relied on against him without him
being given an opportunity of explaining them. If
these rules are satisfied, the enquiry is not open to
attack on the ground that the procedure laid down in
the Evidence Act for taking evidence was not strictly
followed."
Rajinder Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 2 December, 2004
"4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued
that the case of the appellant is parallel to the case of
Mohan Singh (supra). The argument is that in the said
case also neither the cash was chekced nor the
statement of any passenger was recorded and, thus, it
was found that the inquiry against the delinquent was
vitiated.
1