Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.47 seconds)State Bank Of India vs S.S.Koshal on 12 January, 1994
Therefore, I hold that the decision of this Court in M.N. Prasad's case (supra) is in no way contrary to the decision of the Supreme court in State Bank of India, Bhopal v. S.S. Koshal (supra).
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 145 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Central Bank Of India Ltd vs Karunamoy Banerjee on 18 August, 1967
"We must, however, emphasize that the rules of natural justice, as laid down by this Court, will have to be observed, in the conduct of a domestic enquiry against a workman. If the allegations are denied by the workman it is needless to state that the burden of proving the truth of those allegations will be on the management; and the witnesses called, by the management, must be allowed to be cross-examined by the workman and the latter must also be given an opportunity to examine himself and adduce any other evidence that he might choose, in support of his plea. But, if the workman admits his guilt, to insist upon the management to let in evidence about the allegations, will, in our opinion, only be an empty formality. In such a case, it will be open to the management to examine the workman himself, even in the first instance, so as to enable him to offer any explanations for his conduct, or to place before the management any circumstances which will go to mitigate the gravity of the offence. But, even then, the examination of the workman, under such circumstances, should not savour of an inquisition. If, after the examination of the workman, the management chooses to examine any witnesses, the workman must be given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses and also to adduce any other evidence that he may choose".
Section 32 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Employers Of Firestone Tyre And Rubber ... vs Their Workmen on 22 August, 1967
21. The argument of Sri Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Disciplinary Authority having decided to hold enquiry after receipt of the reply from the petitioner and considering the same, should have held the enquiry in conformity with fair play and principles of natural justice, has no merit in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is permissible for the Disciplinary Authority to hold further enquiry against the delinquent officer even in a case where the delinquent admits his guilt, for the limited purpose of drawing the attention of the delinquent to the evidence on the record which goes against him and which if he cannot satisfactorily explain must lead to a conclusion of guilt. In the present case the facts clearly reveal that that was the purpose for holding enquiry even after admission of the guilt by the petitioner. The Supreme Court in the case of -Employers of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co., Private Ltd. v. The Workmen (1967- II-LLJ-715), observed thus: p. 718:
Union Of Bharat, Ministry Of Rly. vs Mst. Asha Bi on 15 February, 1957
11. The principle in the above section is based on the fact that generally the previous statement is not substantive evidence. It was previously held by certain High Courts that an admission cannot be used against a party unless it is put to him and an opportunity is afforded to explain it if it was capable of explanation. This view is no longer a good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Singh v. Mst. Bhagir Thi . In that case the Supreme Court held that the purpose of contradicting the witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act is very much different from the purpose of proving the admission and admission is substantive evidence of the fact admitted while a previous statement used to contradict a witness merely serves the purpose of throwing doubt on the veracity of the witness. What weight is to be attached to an admission made by a party is a matter different from its use as admissible evidence. In view of this the provisions of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act are not applicable to admissions. In case of an admission it is open to the court to reject the exculpatory part and admit the inculpatory part if the other evidence in the case would show that the inculpatory part could be accepted as true.