Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.96 seconds)Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd vs Girja Shankar Pant & Ors on 18 October, 2000
The decision in Kumaon Mandal (supra) does not lend any assistance to
the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case wherein
termination of service of the General Manager of the Nigam by its Managing
Director was challenged, the Court noticed that the Managing Director was not
well-disposed towards the General Manager, show cause notice was served on
him without supply of necessary documents, enquiry was held without fixing
date for examining witnesses, no Presenting Officer was appointed,
representation against the report of enquiry was sought for on the next date and
the dismissal order was passed few hours after personal hearing was given by the
Managing Director. These circumstances were indicators of the impugned order
being passed in the hottest of haste and it also suffered from bias of the
Managing Director. The Court held that the entire chain of evidence smacked of
personal clash and adoption of a method unknown to law. Paragraph 32 of the
decision being relevant is quoted hereunder :
Manindra Nath Ghosh vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 12 July, 1979
The decisions in Manindra Nath Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal & ors.,
reported in 1979 (2) CLJ 127 and Sri Bhowchand Singh vs. Union of India & ors.,
reported in 2000 (2) CLJ 148 were relied on for the proposition that if in
conducting enquiry there occasions breach of principles of natural justice, a writ
petition at the second show cause notice stage would be maintainable.
Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui Etc, Mohd. Aslam, ... vs Union Of India And Others on 24 October, 1994
The decisions in Manindra Nath Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal & ors.,
reported in 1979 (2) CLJ 127 and Sri Bhowchand Singh vs. Union of India & ors.,
reported in 2000 (2) CLJ 148 were relied on for the proposition that if in
conducting enquiry there occasions breach of principles of natural justice, a writ
petition at the second show cause notice stage would be maintainable.
Union Of India And Ors vs A.N. Saxena on 27 March, 1992
Answering the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Bera,
learned Counsel for the Corporation submitted that the writ petition being
premature, it does not warrant interference. According to him, the report of the
Enquiry Officer could not be acted upon because of injunction granted by the
Court while admitting the writ petition. The petitioner, he contended, would have
a further opportunity of submitting his representation against the Enquiry
Officer's report before his disciplinary authority proceeds further on the basis
thereof. Additionally, the petitioner has a right of appeal in terms of the present
regulations if at all a penal order is passed against him. He, accordingly, prayed
for dismissal of the writ petition and liberty to the petitioner's disciplinary
authority to proceed further. To support his submission, he relied on the
decisions in AIR 1976 SC 1821 : Chanan Singh vs. Registrar, Coop. Societies,
AIR 1992 SC 1233 :Union of India vs. A.N. Saxena and AIR 1987 SC 943 : State
of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma.
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Brahma Datt Sharma And Anr on 25 February, 1987
Answering the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Bera,
learned Counsel for the Corporation submitted that the writ petition being
premature, it does not warrant interference. According to him, the report of the
Enquiry Officer could not be acted upon because of injunction granted by the
Court while admitting the writ petition. The petitioner, he contended, would have
a further opportunity of submitting his representation against the Enquiry
Officer's report before his disciplinary authority proceeds further on the basis
thereof. Additionally, the petitioner has a right of appeal in terms of the present
regulations if at all a penal order is passed against him. He, accordingly, prayed
for dismissal of the writ petition and liberty to the petitioner's disciplinary
authority to proceed further. To support his submission, he relied on the
decisions in AIR 1976 SC 1821 : Chanan Singh vs. Registrar, Coop. Societies,
AIR 1992 SC 1233 :Union of India vs. A.N. Saxena and AIR 1987 SC 943 : State
of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma.
Employers Of Firestone Tyre And Rubber ... vs Their Workmen on 22 August, 1967
I have considered the charge-sheets. The expressions used therein are not
such so as to give rise to an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that his
guilt has been pre-judged. In my reading, the disciplinary authority has with
sufficient degree of clarity expressed the alleged acts of misdemeanour of the
petitioner which require investigation by conducting an enquiry. Had the charge-
sheet not been clear and certain, the disciplinary authority would run the risk of
being charged with issuance of a charge-sheet that is vague, indefinite or
unspecific. Whether or not a disciplinary authority has a closed and pre-judged
mind at the inception of disciplinary proceedings cannot really be comprehended
only by having a look at the expressions used in the charge-sheet. Disciplinary
proceedings may be held to have been initiated with closed and pre-judged mind
if from the attending circumstances such a conclusion can reasonably be drawn
even though there is a proliferation of expression in the charge-sheet like "alleged
acts", "prima facie guilty", "tentative view", etc. and the charge-sheet appears to
be perfectly worded, whereas proceedings initiated absolutely bonafide, may not
be interdicted despite definite expressions in the charge-sheet which might give
an impression in the mind of the delinquent that nothing remains to be decided
and that the same have been initiated only to complete a formality in law, unless
surrounding circumstances are such that the Court is convinced that there been
deflection of justice. A charge-sheet has to be construed in a reasonable manner
and too much legalism cannot be expected of a domestic enquiry [see Firestone
(supra) and AIR 1972 Cal 401 : Collector of Customs vs. Biswanath Mukherjee].
If apart from the inappropriately worded charge-sheet there is no other
incriminating circumstance having the effect of vitiating the proceedings, it would
be prudent exercise of judicial discretion not to interfere.
Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr vs Kailash Chandra Ahuja on 8 July, 2008
He next urged that there is no pleading in the petition as to how the
petitioner felt prejudiced by reason of appointment of Enquiry Officer
simultaneously with issuance of charge-sheet. Having regard to the settled law
that violation of principles of natural justice has to be judged on the touchstone
of prejudice, he urged that the Court ought not to be swayed merely because in
some of the decisions the procedure of appointing Enquiry Officer alongwith
issuance of charge-sheet has been faulted by the Court. On the point of prejudice
suffered by the petitioner not having been demonstrated, he relied on the
decisions in (1996) 3 SCC 364 : State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma, (2008) 9
SCC 31 : Haryana Financial Corporation vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja and (2007) 7
SCC 236 : Bank of India vs. T. Jogram.
Bank Of India & Ors vs T. Jogram on 2 August, 2007
He next urged that there is no pleading in the petition as to how the
petitioner felt prejudiced by reason of appointment of Enquiry Officer
simultaneously with issuance of charge-sheet. Having regard to the settled law
that violation of principles of natural justice has to be judged on the touchstone
of prejudice, he urged that the Court ought not to be swayed merely because in
some of the decisions the procedure of appointing Enquiry Officer alongwith
issuance of charge-sheet has been faulted by the Court. On the point of prejudice
suffered by the petitioner not having been demonstrated, he relied on the
decisions in (1996) 3 SCC 364 : State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma, (2008) 9
SCC 31 : Haryana Financial Corporation vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja and (2007) 7
SCC 236 : Bank of India vs. T. Jogram.