Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)
Suresh Bapurao Patre vs M/O Finance on 12 June, 2024 cites

Arjun Chaubey vs Union Of India And Others on 23 March, 1984

at BA No 3082017 2a. Reliance placed on the case of Arjun Chaubey (supra) is misplaced as in that case the Superintendent was the Disciplinary Authority, who had issued the delinquent a < - - * se zn % x . ¢ a? ' By 2K SOAS See Re Ser aS oie Fact Rae) seas SR AK y en Pe a Ne ae bees Ares SSUW CUSe NOMS, Oe Tound Enat axnlianaton untrue and pronounced the delinquent guilty and dismissed him fom service, Therefore, the Supreme Court held that no one can be a judge of his own cause. This decision has no application to the case at hand as Disciplinary Authority has initiated departmental inquiry and has not passed any punishment order. Subsequent developments show that the Disciplinary Authority has retried from service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 116 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Inspector Prem Chand vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Others on 5 April, 2007

CO 22 OA No 308/201 F i? The same principle has been laid down in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. J. Alyned, (1979) 2 SCC 286 and Inspector Prem: Chand (supra). The first charge is that the applicant was directed to take print outof the orders and give to the Presiding Officer well in advance in order to enable the PO to make corrections before pronouncing the orders and he did not follow the instructions properly. Second charge is that despite directions, he did not improve the quality of typing and continued to commit spelling mistakes. Fourth charge is that he was discourteous to the callers on office telephone and asked irrelevant and unnecessary questions to them. For quashing the chargehseet what the Tribunal has to see is whether on mere reading the charge a misconduct is made out. If on mere reading of the chargesheet, if no misconduct is made out, if no charge is made out, the chargesheet will have to be quashed. It is settled law that chargesheet can be quashed on the ground that charges are vague and on bare reading of the charge no misconduct is made out, Gd Ne 3O8/20) F 3 tad Pe ie a On the basis of this principle, it will have to be een whether the applicant has been guilty of misconduct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 226 - S B Sinha - Full Document

D.V. Kapoor vs Union Of India And Ors on 7 August, 1990

In the case of D.V. Kapoor (supra), Supreme Court held that the condition precedent thereto is that there should be a finding that the deliquent is guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of public duty in office, as defined in Rule 8(5), explanation (b) which is an inclusive definition, ie. the scope is wide of mark dependent on the facts or circumstances in a given case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 185 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

The Disciplinary ... vs Nikunja Bihari Patnaik on 15 April, 1996

i3. Mere error of judgment resulting in doing of negligent act dees not amount te misconduct. However, in exceptional circumstances, not working diligently may be a misconduct. An action which is detrimental to the prestige of the institution may alsa amount to misconduct, Acting beyond authority may be a misconduct. When the offlce-bearer is expected ta act wih absolute integrity and honesty in handling the work, any misappropriation, even temporary, of the Jimds, etc. constitutes a serious misconduct invinig severe punishment. (Vide Disciplinary Authority-cum- Regi. Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, Govt. of TN. ¥ ALN, Ramamurthy, Inspector Prem Chand v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and SBI y. SN. Goyal.}".
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 296 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs J. Ahmed on 7 March, 1979

CO 22 OA No 308/201 F i? The same principle has been laid down in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. J. Alyned, (1979) 2 SCC 286 and Inspector Prem: Chand (supra). The first charge is that the applicant was directed to take print outof the orders and give to the Presiding Officer well in advance in order to enable the PO to make corrections before pronouncing the orders and he did not follow the instructions properly. Second charge is that despite directions, he did not improve the quality of typing and continued to commit spelling mistakes. Fourth charge is that he was discourteous to the callers on office telephone and asked irrelevant and unnecessary questions to them. For quashing the chargehseet what the Tribunal has to see is whether on mere reading the charge a misconduct is made out. If on mere reading of the chargesheet, if no misconduct is made out, if no charge is made out, the chargesheet will have to be quashed. It is settled law that chargesheet can be quashed on the ground that charges are vague and on bare reading of the charge no misconduct is made out, Gd Ne 3O8/20) F 3 tad Pe ie a On the basis of this principle, it will have to be een whether the applicant has been guilty of misconduct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 473 - D A Desai - Full Document
1