Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.40 seconds)
Nabin Kumar Chhura vs D/O Post on 6 December, 2023 cites

Krishna Rai (Dead) vs Banaras Hindu University Through ... on 16 June, 2022

Hence, by applying the decisions relied on by the applicant in the cases of Krishna Rai (supra) and Biswantah Sethi (supra), providing that the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, if not done in that manner, it would have no existence in law, the procedure adopted by the applicant in the matter of payment is unbecoming act on the part of the applicant. The IO did not call the two witnesses cited by the applicant as they were not relevant to the matter. The applicant did not prefer any appeal to such refusal to call those two witnesses by the IO. He also did not submit his written brief despite due opportunity justifying as to how those two witnesses were relevant and not calling them how he will be prejudiced. Neither in the pleadings nor in course of hearing any such material has been placed to convince this Tribunal as to 13 OA 260/00449 of 2015 how the proceeding was an empty formality. It is seen that the statement recorded was signed by the IO. The statement of the witnesses has not been questioned by the applicant either before the DA, AA or RA or even in this OA. Thus, non signing of the statement cannot be fatal so as to interfere in the punishment imposed on the applicant on proved charge. It is seen that the DA took note of all the points and imposed the punishment dated 28.08.2013 in a well reasoned and speaking order as would be evidence from the extract of the relevant portion of the order, which runs thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 19 - V Nath - Full Document

Jagdish Prasad Saxena vs State Of Madhya Bharat on 28 October, 1960

The entire proceeding was conducted as an empty formality and, thus, the punishment is not sustainable, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Saksena Vs. State of MP, AIR 1961 SC 1070. The statements of witnesses were not authenticated by the witness, the applicant and the IO, which having not been done, it contravenes the DGP&T Letter No. 6/66/60-Disc, dated 14.04.21961 and para-92 of P&T Manual, Vol. III.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 78 - Full Document

State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996

The applicant 11 OA 260/00449 of 2015 challenged the order of punishment on the grounds that since the inventory was not prepared as per the provision in Vol. V of Postal Manual, the disciplinary proceedings are liable to be quashed. We have gone through the said provision filed by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant wherein it has been provided that if the officers and officials is unable to produce the money or stamps found shortage and is "unable to given any satisfactory explanation" in such an event, an inventory of the cash and stamp actually found should be drawn up and got signed by two independent witnesses and action should be taken as prescribed in the rules on the subject or criminal offences in Chapter IV, Postal Manual, Volume-II. In the instant case, as discussed above, undisputedly, the applicant has given explanation in writing that he had spent the shortage amount for his personal use and subsequently, he made good of the shortage by depositing the same. However, this Tribunal is reminded by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank Of Patiala & Ors Vs S.K.Sharma, 1996 AIR 1669, wherein it was held that "violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except cases falling under 'no notice', 'no opportunity' and 'no hearing' categories, the 12 OA 260/00449 of 2015 complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively. In the instant case, the applicant has not specifically stated as to how he was prejudiced for not adhearing to the above provision, rather, it is an admitted fact that the applicant had adopted a novel procedure in making MGNREGA payments, that too de hors the rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 1234 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1