Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)
Dr.D.Rajamanickam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 April, 2018 cites

Punjab National Bank And Ors.The Chief ... vs Sh. Kunj Behari Misra, Sh. Shanti Prasad ... on 19 August, 1998

17. From the above extracts, it could be seen that the Government had not considered the evidence on record independently and has not given its reasons for differing with the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer. As already stated there is nothing on record to show that the appellant was given a personal hearing, after the issuance of the 2nd show cause notice. As per the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in various cases, referred to above, when a Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the Enquiry Officer on any article of charge, before it records its own findings on such charge, it must
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 929 - Full Document

Lav Nigam vs Chairman And Managing Director, Iti ... on 17 March, 2004

9. Mr.B.Balavijayan, would also invite our attention to the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Company Ltd, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 713; Lav Nigam v. Chairman and Managing Director, ITI Ltd., and another, reported in 2006 (9) SCC 440; G. Vallikumari v. Andhra Education Society and others, reported in 2010 (2) SCC 497 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in The Join Commissioner of Police and The Deputy Commissioner of Police v. G.Anandan, reported in 2008 Writ LR 86. It is also the contention of Mr.B.Balavijayan, that there was no show cause notice (2nd show cause notice) before imposing the punishment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 167 - Y Singh - Full Document

Yoginath D. Bagde vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 16 September, 1999

13. This view of the Honble Supreme Court was reiterated in Yoginath D.Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 1999 (7) SCC 739, considering the language of Rule 9 (2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, the Honble Supreme Court held that even if the Rules do not specifically provide for the Disciplinary Authority to give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer, before deviating from the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 505 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1