State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Sinha on 2 February, 2010
The relevant observations made in Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) are as follows:--
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 19 December, 2008
In the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), this Court held that mere production of documents is not enough, contents of documentary evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses. Relevant extract thereof reads as under:--
The State Of U.P. vs Ram Charittar And Kishori Lal Both Sons ... on 14 December, 2005
14. The question that there is a salutary principle, which requires, in the case of a major penalty, the minimum requirement of fixing a date, time and place for holding the inquiry, and further, requiring the Establishment to prove the charges through production of oral and documentary evidence before the Inquiry Committee by a Presenting Officer on their behalf is well-acknowledged, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570, State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236 and the Bench decisions of this Court in State of U.P. and another v. Kishori Lal and another, 2018 (9) ADJ 397 (DB) (LB), Smt. Karuna Jaiswal v. State of U.P., 2018 (9) ADJ 107 (DB) (LB) and State of U.P. v. Aditya Prasad Srivastava and another, 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB) (LB).
Nirmala J. Jhala vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 18 March, 2013
In the case of Nirmala J. Jhala (supra), this Court held that evidence recorded in a preliminary inquiry cannot be used for a regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it and the opportunity to cross-examine persons examined in preliminary inquiry is not given. Relevant extract thereof reads as under:--
Amalendu Ghosh vs North Eastern Railway (By The District ... on 15 January, 1960
"42. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Amalendu Ghosh v. North Eastern Railway [AIR 1960 SC 992], held that the purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry in respect of a particular alleged misconduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima facie, to know as to whether the alleged misconduct has been committed and on the basis of the findings recorded in preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment can be passed. It may be used only to take a view as to whether a regular disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent is required to be held.
Champaklal Chimanlal Shah vs The Union Of India on 23 October, 1963
43. Similarly in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 1854] a Constitution Bench of this Court while taking a similar view held that preliminary inquiry should not be confused with regular inquiry. The preliminary inquiry is not governed by the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Preliminary inquiry may be held ex parte, for it is merely for the satisfaction of the Government though usually for the sake of fairness, an explanation may be sought from the government servant even at such an inquiry. But at that stage, he has no right to be heard as the inquiry is merely for the satisfaction of the Government as to whether a regular inquiry must be held. The Court further held as under : (AIR p. 1862, para 12)
"12. ... There must therefore be no confusion between the two enquiries and it is only when the government proceeds to hold a departmental enquiry for the purpose of inflicting on the government servant one of the three major punishments indicated in Article 311 that the government servant is entitled to the protection of that article [, nor prior to that]."
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 20 November, 1996
In Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 1 SCC 299 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 152 : AIR 1997 SC 2148] this Court dealt with the issue and held as under:
State Of Uttaranchal & Ors vs Kharak Singh on 13 August, 2008
14. The question that there is a salutary principle, which requires, in the case of a major penalty, the minimum requirement of fixing a date, time and place for holding the inquiry, and further, requiring the Establishment to prove the charges through production of oral and documentary evidence before the Inquiry Committee by a Presenting Officer on their behalf is well-acknowledged, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570, State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236 and the Bench decisions of this Court in State of U.P. and another v. Kishori Lal and another, 2018 (9) ADJ 397 (DB) (LB), Smt. Karuna Jaiswal v. State of U.P., 2018 (9) ADJ 107 (DB) (LB) and State of U.P. v. Aditya Prasad Srivastava and another, 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB) (LB).
Satyendra Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 August, 2022
In addition to the aforesaid settled legal position, there is a recent endorsement of the salutary principle, above discussed, by the Supreme Court in Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P. and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325, where it has been remarked:
1