Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)
Mahendra Kumar Jain vs Appellate Rent Tribunal And Ors on 10 May, 2019 cites

A. S. T. Arunachalam Pillai vs M/S. Southern Roadways (Private) Ltd on 29 April, 1960

The aforesaid view has been taken by this Court in a number of decisions and a reference may be made to the decisions in A.S. Arunachalam Pillial v. Southern Roadways Ltd. and Anr. 1960 SC 1191; The Cantonment Board, Ambala v. Pyarelal, (1965) 3 SCR 341 : (AIR 1966 SC 108). In our view, the learned Single Judge has very rightly held that the Deputy Commissioner was under an obligation to consider the correctness and propriety of the decision of the Managing Committee based on the report of the enquiry committee which since made available to him, showed on the face of it that Shri Maru Ram was included and retained in the inquiry committee despite objection of the appellant and the said Shri Maru Ram became a witness against the appellant to prove one of the charges. It is really unfortunate that the Division Bench set aside the decision of the learned Single Bench by taking recourse to technicalities that the plea of bias on account of (D.B. SAW/853/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 12:32:03 AM) (19 of 21) [CW-1953/2010] inclusion of Shri Maru Ram in the enquiry committee and his giving evidence on behalf of the department had not been specifically taken by the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner. The Division Bench has also proceeded on the footing that as even apart from Charge No. 12, the Deputy Commissioner has also considered the other charges on consideration of which along with Charge No. 12, the proposed order of dismissal was made, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant. Such view, to say the least, cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Single Judge, in our view, has rightly held that the bias of Shri Maru Ram, one of the members of the enquiry committee had percolated throughout the enquiry proceeding thereby vitiating the principles of natural justice and the findings made by the enquiry committee was the product of a biased and prejudiced mind. The illegality committed in conducting the departmental proceedings has left an indelible stamp of infirmity on the decision of the Managing Committee since affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 26 - S J Imam - Full Document

The Cantonment Board, Ambala vs Pyarelal on 12 March, 1965

The aforesaid view has been taken by this Court in a number of decisions and a reference may be made to the decisions in A.S. Arunachalam Pillial v. Southern Roadways Ltd. and Anr. 1960 SC 1191; The Cantonment Board, Ambala v. Pyarelal, (1965) 3 SCR 341 : (AIR 1966 SC 108). In our view, the learned Single Judge has very rightly held that the Deputy Commissioner was under an obligation to consider the correctness and propriety of the decision of the Managing Committee based on the report of the enquiry committee which since made available to him, showed on the face of it that Shri Maru Ram was included and retained in the inquiry committee despite objection of the appellant and the said Shri Maru Ram became a witness against the appellant to prove one of the charges. It is really unfortunate that the Division Bench set aside the decision of the learned Single Bench by taking recourse to technicalities that the plea of bias on account of (D.B. SAW/853/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 12:32:03 AM) (19 of 21) [CW-1953/2010] inclusion of Shri Maru Ram in the enquiry committee and his giving evidence on behalf of the department had not been specifically taken by the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner. The Division Bench has also proceeded on the footing that as even apart from Charge No. 12, the Deputy Commissioner has also considered the other charges on consideration of which along with Charge No. 12, the proposed order of dismissal was made, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant. Such view, to say the least, cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Single Judge, in our view, has rightly held that the bias of Shri Maru Ram, one of the members of the enquiry committee had percolated throughout the enquiry proceeding thereby vitiating the principles of natural justice and the findings made by the enquiry committee was the product of a biased and prejudiced mind. The illegality committed in conducting the departmental proceedings has left an indelible stamp of infirmity on the decision of the Managing Committee since affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 12 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document
1   2 Next