Mohd.Yunus Khan vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 28 September, 2010
Paragraph No. 16 of Mohd. Yunus Khan Vs. State of U.P. (supra) is quoted as under:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.28 seconds)The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bani Singh And Another on 5 April, 1990
3 and 4 of the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh (supra) are quoted as under:
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Sinha on 2 February, 2010
In the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) the Hon''ble Supreme Court, inter alia, said,
P.V. Mahadevan vs M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 8 August, 2005
47. The petitioner referred charge No. 1 and submitted that as per the charge No. 1, a report was submitted by the petitioner on 30.04.1983 allegedly for grant of license to one Satnam Singh. Referring to the charge No. 2, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of inspection, it was found that the place of business of the Firm, which was certified by the petitioner, i.e. 171 Harjendra Nagar, Kanpur, was not there and it was found that earlier at that place there was a shop of coal of one Kashmeera Singh and on inspection only the haystack was found at the spot and therefore, the first information report was lodged against the Firm and the Additional District Magistrate, Food & Civil Supplies, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 23.10.1984 suspended the license and issued notice dated 09.11.1984 to the Firm as to why its license be not cancelled and thereafter by order dated 19.12.1984 , the licence of the said Firm was cancelled. It has been further contended by counsel for the petitioner that in the year 1984 itself, the respondents came to know that the report of the petitioner was allegedly incorrect and thereafter, the license of the Firm was cancelled on 19.12.1984. It has been further submitted that there is no explanation as to why the respondents did not initiate disciplinary proceedings, if any, against the petitioner then and waited till 1999 for initiating the proceedings and by order dated 05.04.1999, the petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter, charge-sheet was issued on 21.01.2000 to the petitioner, which is referred above.
Section 119 in Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Pragyesh Misra S/O P.N. Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary ... on 17 August, 2012
17. The Division Bench of this Court in Pragyesh Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No. 1126 of 2011 decided on 17.08.2012 interpreting the sub-Rule 7 of Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 held that provisions of Rule 7(v), (vii) and (x) has to be followed before imposing major penalty. The relevant paragraph Nos. 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 of the judgment are quoted as under:-
State Of Uttaranchal & Ors vs Kharak Singh on 13 August, 2008
15. The Supreme Court in case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Kharak Singh reported in 2008 (8) SCC 236, laid down following principles in paragraph No. 11 of the judgment, which is quoted as under:-
Section 118 in Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Moni Shankar vs Union Of India And Another on 4 March, 2008
"16. We have to proceed, keeping in mind the trite law that holding disciplinary proceedings against a government employee and imposing a punishment on his being found guilty of misconduct under the statutory rules is in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings. Though, the technical rules of procedure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply in a domestic enquiry, however, the principles of natural justice require to be observed strictly. Therefore, the enquiry is to be conducted fairly and reasonably and the enquiry report must contain reasons for reaching the conclusion that the charge framed against the delinquent stood proved against him. It cannot be an ipse dixit of the inquiry officer. Punishment for misconduct can be imposed in consonance with the statutory rules and principles of natural justice. (See Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 395; Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364; Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer, AIR 1985 SC 1121; Moni Shankar v. Union of India (2008) 3 SCC 484; and Union of India v. Prakash Kumar Tandon, (2009) 2 SCC 541."
Union Of India & Ors vs Prakash Kumar Tandon on 17 December, 2008
"16. We have to proceed, keeping in mind the trite law that holding disciplinary proceedings against a government employee and imposing a punishment on his being found guilty of misconduct under the statutory rules is in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings. Though, the technical rules of procedure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply in a domestic enquiry, however, the principles of natural justice require to be observed strictly. Therefore, the enquiry is to be conducted fairly and reasonably and the enquiry report must contain reasons for reaching the conclusion that the charge framed against the delinquent stood proved against him. It cannot be an ipse dixit of the inquiry officer. Punishment for misconduct can be imposed in consonance with the statutory rules and principles of natural justice. (See Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 395; Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364; Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer, AIR 1985 SC 1121; Moni Shankar v. Union of India (2008) 3 SCC 484; and Union of India v. Prakash Kumar Tandon, (2009) 2 SCC 541."