Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.34 seconds)
Subhash Chander S/O Shri N.D. Sharma vs Employees State Insurance Corporation ... on 17 April, 2007 cites

State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena & Others on 27 September, 1996

7. Respondents have controverted these allegations and stated that the very prayer in the application is not legally tenable in view of settled position of law that no court or Tribunal would be justified to go into whether such charges are true for this is a matter for consideration of relevant evidence etc. at the enquiry. Therefore, in view of the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dy. Inspector General of Police v. K.S. Swaminathan , the Tribunal should reject the present OA. Moreover, the Apex Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena has repeatedly held that stay of disciplinary proceedings by Tribunals cannot be a matter of course because the Inquiry Officer has to conduct an enquiry expeditiously and staying of an enquiry impedes departmental proceedings and is not conducive for effective administration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 588 - B P Reddy - Full Document

The Deputy Inspector General Of Police vs K.S. Swaminathan on 4 October, 1996

7. Respondents have controverted these allegations and stated that the very prayer in the application is not legally tenable in view of settled position of law that no court or Tribunal would be justified to go into whether such charges are true for this is a matter for consideration of relevant evidence etc. at the enquiry. Therefore, in view of the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dy. Inspector General of Police v. K.S. Swaminathan , the Tribunal should reject the present OA. Moreover, the Apex Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena has repeatedly held that stay of disciplinary proceedings by Tribunals cannot be a matter of course because the Inquiry Officer has to conduct an enquiry expeditiously and staying of an enquiry impedes departmental proceedings and is not conducive for effective administration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 74 - Full Document

Chander Bhushan Rai And Ors., Dev Kumar ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 21 February, 2002

10. This action on part of respondents caused prejudice to the applicant and, therefore, the impugned charge sheet is liable to be quashed on this sole ground alone as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan as well as in the case of Chander Bhushan v. NCT of Delhi in OA 2359/2003 on 14.5.2004 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and subsequently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that ' It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the Court is to balance these two diverse considerations'.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 25 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Shatrughan Lal & Anr on 30 July, 1998

11. Applicant has further cited other cases to bolster his case, i.e., Committee of Management, Kisan Degree College v. S.S. Pandey ; State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal ; State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram ; Adya Nath De v. West Bengal SEB and Ors. 2002 (1) SLR 633 to plead that without going into the pleas raised by applicant, respondents had appointed an Inquiry Officer as well as Presiding Officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 239 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Bhagat Ram on 9 October, 1974

11. Applicant has further cited other cases to bolster his case, i.e., Committee of Management, Kisan Degree College v. S.S. Pandey ; State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal ; State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram ; Adya Nath De v. West Bengal SEB and Ors. 2002 (1) SLR 633 to plead that without going into the pleas raised by applicant, respondents had appointed an Inquiry Officer as well as Presiding Officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 127 - A N Ray - Full Document

Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui Etc, Mohd. Aslam, ... vs Union Of India And Others on 24 October, 1994

19. Moreover, in this case, the respondents have adduced enough facts not only to counter these allegations, but also to show the applicant in a poor light in respect of his attempts to stay on as an Inspector at one place of posting for an inordinately long period during his career. Besides, in the said judgment of the Delhi High Court, the contents of the charges were examined after the inquiry had been completed and punishment orders passed, not before it even commenced. It would not be correct to pre-judge the result of the inquiry.
Supreme Court of India Cites 75 - Cited by 347 - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs N. Radhakishan on 7 April, 1998

10. This action on part of respondents caused prejudice to the applicant and, therefore, the impugned charge sheet is liable to be quashed on this sole ground alone as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan as well as in the case of Chander Bhushan v. NCT of Delhi in OA 2359/2003 on 14.5.2004 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and subsequently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that ' It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the Court is to balance these two diverse considerations'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 511 - Full Document
1