Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
Presently Posted At Outer District vs Gnct Of Delhi on 10 September, 2013 cites

Union Of India vs Y.S.Sadhu.Ex-Inspector on 22 September, 2008

9. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the Court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the concerned case to the disciplinary authority, for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide: Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc.etc. v. B. Karunakar etc.etc. AIR 1994 SC 1074; Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. Secretary, S.M. School for Girls & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 293; U.P. State Spinning C. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey & Anr., (2005) 8 SCC 264; and Union of India v. Y.S. Sandhu, Ex-Inspector AIR 2009 SC 161).
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 144 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Chairman Lic Of India & Ors vs A Masilamani on 23 November, 2012

12. We are conscious of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Chairman, LIC of India & others v. A. Masilamani, JT 2012 (11) SC 533 wherein it has been held that where there is fault in the action of the disciplinary as well as appellate authorities, it would be appropriate to remit the matter back to the concerned authority to resume the action from the stage the defect is found. Relevant excerpt of the said judgment reads as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 365 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005

9. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the Court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the concerned case to the disciplinary authority, for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide: Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc.etc. v. B. Karunakar etc.etc. AIR 1994 SC 1074; Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. Secretary, S.M. School for Girls & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 293; U.P. State Spinning C. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey & Anr., (2005) 8 SCC 264; and Union of India v. Y.S. Sandhu, Ex-Inspector AIR 2009 SC 161).
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 225 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1