Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.47 seconds)
D). Smt. Vimla vs Union Of India on 7 November, 2025 cites

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs S. Sree Rama Rao on 10 April, 1963

12. The law is well settled that even in a domestic enquiry, the charges must be clear, definite and specific as it would be difficult for any delinquent to meet the vague charges. Evidence adduced should not be obligatory even if 6 2025:JHHC:33484 the delinquent does not take the defence or make a protest that the charges are vague; that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated for the reason that there must be fair play in action, particularly, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao reported2 and also the decision rendered in Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan3.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 744 - J C Shah - Full Document

Sawai Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 May, 1986

12. The law is well settled that even in a domestic enquiry, the charges must be clear, definite and specific as it would be difficult for any delinquent to meet the vague charges. Evidence adduced should not be obligatory even if 6 2025:JHHC:33484 the delinquent does not take the defence or make a protest that the charges are vague; that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated for the reason that there must be fair play in action, particularly, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao reported2 and also the decision rendered in Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan3.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 198 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Gyan Chand Chattar on 28 May, 2009

14. This position of law has been reiterated in the recent case of Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar and in para 35 of the judgment as reported in SCC, this Court has observed that the law can be summarised that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice and the charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges." 2 AIR 1963 SC 1723 3 (1986) 3 SCC 454 4 (2011) 14 SCC 379 7 2025:JHHC:33484 By going through the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court it is abundantly clear that the charge must be specific, clear and definite; which is absent in the instant case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 229 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Krushnakant B. Parmar vs Union Of India & Anr on 15 February, 2012

Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean wilful and in such a case the employee 5 (2012) 3 SCC 178 8 2025:JHHC:33484 cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant and in the absence of any finding to prove that the absence of the delinquent employee was wilful; it will not amount to misconduct. The relevant paragraph of Krushnakant B. Parmar (Supra) is quoted herein below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 454 - Full Document
1