Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.29 seconds)
Raj Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 24 January, 2025 cites

Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993

(2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 789] , at pp. 38 and 39 where the Court held as under : (SCC para 21) '21. From the ratio laid down in B. Karunakar [ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184] it is explicitly clear that the doctrine of natural justice requires supply of a copy of the enquiry officer's report to the delinquent if such enquiry officer is other than the disciplinary authority. It is also clear that non-supply of report of the enquiry officer is in breach of natural justice. But it is equally clear that failure to supply a report of the enquiry officer to the delinquent employee would not ipso facto result in the proceedings being declared null and void and the order of punishment non est and ineffective. It is for the delinquent employee to plead and prove that non-supply of such report had caused prejudice and resulted in miscarriage of justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document

Board Of High School & Intermediate ... vs Kumari Chittra Srivastava & Others on 20 November, 1969

This Court also spoke in the same language in Board of High School and Intermediate Education v. Chitra Srivastava [Board of High School and Intermediate Education v. Chitra Srivastava, (1970) 1 SCC 121] , as is apparent from the following words : (SCC p. 123, para 7) '7. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr C.B. Agarwala, contends that the facts are not in dispute and it is further clear that no useful purpose would have been served if the Board had served a show-cause notice on the petitioner. He says that in view of these circumstances it was not necessary for the Board to have issued a show-cause notice. We are unable to accept this contention. Whether a duty arises in a particular case to issue a show-cause notice before inflicting a penalty does not depend on the authority's satisfaction that the person to be penalised has no defence but on the nature of the order proposed to be passed.'
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 92 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Nidhi Kaim & Anr vs State Of M P And Ors Etc on 13 February, 2017

"111. After examining the facts and the law laid down in the abovementioned seven cases, in my opinion, the ratio laid down in these cases can be summarised thus 111.1. First, in a case where several candidates are found involved in "mass copying" or in other words, where vast majority of candidates were found to have resorted to use of unfair means in any examination then it is not necessary for the institute concerned to give any show-cause notice to any individual candidate before cancellation of his result. 111.2. Second, when it is difficult to prove by direct evidence that the "copying" was done by the candidates then the same can be proved by drawing inference based on probabilities and circumstantial evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 96 - J S Khehar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next