Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.30 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Avinash Nagra vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Etc on 30 September, 1996
In reference of the conduct of
'Teacher', the statements of various respected person of society are
mentioned in para 10 and 11 of Avinash Nagra vs. Navoday Vidyalaya
Samiti etc., 1997 AGR-SC-2833 = 1997 (2) SCC 534 (dt. 30.09.1996), the
Supreme Court mentioned that: -
Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 August, 1997
"Complaints Committee as envisaged by the Supreme Court in its
judgment in Vishaka's Case, 1997 (6) SCC 241 at 253, will be deemed to
be an inquiry authority for the purposes of Central Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called CCS Rules) and the report of the
Page No.8
Complaints Committee shall be deemed to be an inquiry report under the
CCS Rules. Thereafter the disciplinary authority will act on the report in
accordance with the rules."
Apparel Export Promotion Council vs A.K. Chopra on 20 January, 1999
In the case of Apparel Export Promotion (supra), a superior
officer tried to sit close and touch the female employee and did not
stop despite her reprimand. After departmental enquiry, the officer
was removed from service for his unbecoming behaviour. Removal
order was challenged and the High Court upset the finding on the
ground that officer only tried to molest and did not actually molest the
female employee. The Supreme Court held that the order of High
Court is not valid because High Court should not have substituted its
own discretion for that of Disciplinary Authority in the matter of facts
and quantum of punishment. The Court also said that in case of
finding of facts in departmental enquiry, the 16 Disciplinary
Authority is the sole Judge of facts and Appellate Authority can
upset the finding, but not the High Court unless the findings of
Disciplinary Authority are perverse and against the Law. The High
Court does not sit as Appellate Authority over the finding of
Disciplinary Authority and impose some other punishment. The
adequacy or in adequacy of evidence is not permitted to be canvassed
before the High Court. In para-15 of the aforesaid case, the Supreme
Court observed: -
Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors vs U.O.I. & Ors on 19 October, 2012
10. The three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court said in Medha
Kotwal Lele v. U.O.I., 2013 (1) SCC 311, that the report of committee
shall be deemed to be an inquiry report under CCS Rules: -
Union Of India vs Sardar Bahadur on 29 October, 1971
17. It is useful to note the following observations of this Court in Union of
India v. Sardar Bahadur, (1972) 4 SCC 618: