Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.54 seconds)
C.D. Gurung vs Union Of India &Ors on 17 May, 2016 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs Gyan Chand Chattar on 28 May, 2009

In my considered opinion cited decision is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case. As held in U.O.I. versus the Gyan Chand Chattar reported in (2009) 12 Supreme Court cases 78 that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person in a strict adherence to the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice. That charges should be specific, definite and setting out the details of the incident which formed the basis of the charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Findings should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjectures and surmises. The authority must record reasons for a arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct. It is true that even if the delinquent does not take the defence raised any protest saying that the charges are vague, that does not absolve the enquiring authority from being vitiated for the reason that there must be fair play in action, particularly, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 229 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs R. Reddappa And Anr. on 5 August, 1993

Mr. Pal relied on a decision in Union of India and Others v. R. Reddappa and Another reported in (1993) 4 Supreme Court Cases 269, in which case about 800 railway employees were dismissed under Rule 14(ii) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules for participating in the Loco Running Staff Association strike in Jan., 1981. In each of these cases the disciplinary authority held that holding an inquiry was not reasonably practicable. The Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the orders of dismissal on the ground of absence of any material to support the said finding. Rejecting the contention that in doing so the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court held that an illegal order passed by the disciplinary authority does not assume the character of legality only because it has been affirmed in appeal or revision unless the higher authority is found to have applied its mind to the basic infirmities in the order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 68 - R M Sahai - Full Document
1   2 Next