Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 20 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Makeshwar Nath Srivastava vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 2 March, 1971
As per the above provision, the appellate authority is competent to
enhance the penalty once Rule 9 inquiry has been undertaken by the
respondents. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the respondents have acted
against the rules. The appellate authority has acted within the framework of
the rules as cited above. The applicant has cited the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Makeshwar Nath Srivastava v. State of Bihar
& ors and the same is not applicable to the applicant since the rules of the
respondent organization provided for appellate authority to enhance penalty
as has been indicated above. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
is extracted hereinabove:
Section 20 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Ram Lakhan Sharma on 2 July, 2018
Hon'ble Supreme Court in regard to appointment of PO has held in Union
of India vs Ram Lakhan Sharma on 2 July, 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 2608
OF 2012, as under:
Bharath Electronics Ltd. vs K. Kasi on 17 January, 1986
28. Justice M. Rama Jois of the Karnataka High Court had occasion to
consider the above aspect in Bharath Electronics Ltd. vs. K. Kasi,
ILR 1987 Karnataka 366. In the above case the order of domestic inquiry
was challenged before the Labour and Industrial Tribunal. The grounds
taken were, that inquiry is vitiated since Presenting Officer was not
appointed and further Inquiry Officer played the role of prosecutor. This
Court held that there is no legal compulsion that Presenting Officer
should be appointed but if the Inquiry Officer plays the role of Presenting
Officer, the inquiry would be invalid. Following was held in paragraphs 8
and 9:
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1