Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)
D.L. Dabgar And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 25 February, 1987 cites

State Of Assam & Anr vs J. N. Roy Biswas on 6 October, 1975

In this connection the learned Counsel placed reliance upon Dwarka Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1957 RLW 587; Haridaya Narayan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1975 (1) SLR 232; and State of Assam and Anr. v. J.N. Roy Biswas . Mr. Dave on the other hand urged that the order directing that no departmental enquiry need be held against the petitioner is not a final order debarring the disciplinary authority from reconsidering the same and the petitioner cannot claim that once the proceedings had been dropped after the preliminary enquiry no departmental enquiry can be held against him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 105 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Ayodhya Prasad vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 16 January, 1982

In the case of Ajodhya Prasad Pandey v. Union of India 1971 Patna Law Journal Reports 515, a Bench of this Court had quashed a second departmental proceedings in which a railway servant had been charge-sheeted for the second time on the same allegations of facts which formed the basis of the charge sheet in the previous departmental proceedings and he had been exonerated of those charges.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 3 November, 1961

In the case of Davendra Pratap Narayan Rai Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh , the Bench decision in Dwarka Chand (supra) was noticed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, but the view taken in that case was not dissented from. No decision was cited at the bar in which a contrary view has been taken. It must therefore be held that, in absence of a specific rule, once a departmental enquiry is over and a public servant is exonerated of the charges on merits by the appointing authority, no second departmental enquiry on the same facts can be ordered. In the instant case, no rule was brought to our notice in course of the hearing of this application under which a second enquiry as permissible on the very same charges of which the petitioner had been exonerated in the previous departmental proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 139 - J C Shah - Full Document

Om Prakash Maurya vs U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories ... on 9 May, 1986

This is also, therefore, not a case where provisions like Rule 27-A, 28 apply. In the other hand, there are cases which do support the petitioner's claim. Without multiplying the authorities I may only refer to Om Prakash Maurya v. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation, Lucknow and Ors. . In that case their Lordships were considering the U.P. Co-operative 'Societies Act, in which a similar provision existed in relation to probation and confirmation. The order of the appointment of the petitioner in that case indicated that the probation period can be extended and he could be reverted to the post of Office Superintendent without any notice. There was Regulation 17(1) under the said Act which provided that the probationary period could be extended for a period of one year more. Undisputedly on the expiry of |he appellant's initial probationary period of one year, the Appointing Authority extended the same for another period of one year which also exp red on September 4, 1982. During the period of his probation his services were neither terminated nor was he reverted to his substantive post instead he was allowed to continue on the post of Commercial Officer. On the expiry of probationary period of two years the appellant could not be deemed to continue on probation instead he, stood confirmed on the post by implication. The appellant acquired the status of a confirmed employee on the post of Commercial Officer and the Appointing Authority could not legally revert him to the lower post of Superintendent. Their Lordships observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 77 - K N Singh - Full Document
1