Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)
Samir Kumar Behera vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 February, 2024 cites

Union Of India And Another vs Tulsiram Patel And Others on 11 July, 1985

1991 SCC (L&S) 282 : (1991) 15 ATC 729] the Court, while dealing with the exercise of power as conferred by way of exception under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, opined as follows : (SCC p. 369, para 5) "5. ... Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) can be invoked only when the authority is satisfied from the material placed before him that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry. This is clear from the following observation at SCR p. 270 of Tulsiram case [(1985) 3 SCC 398 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 672 : 1985 Supp (2) SCR 131] : (SCC p. 504, para 130) '130. ... A disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary inquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an 14 inquiry or because the department's case against the government servant is weak and must fail.' The decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry cannot, therefore, be rested solely on the ipse dixit of the authority concerned. When the satisfaction of the authority concerned is questioned in a court of law, it is incumbent on those who support the order to show that the satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not the outcome of the whim or caprice of the officer concerned."
Supreme Court of India Cites 138 - Cited by 1450 - D P Madon - Full Document

The State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Debabrata Singha on 13 November, 2019

21. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Singha (supra), while considering the scope of the Disciplinary Authority to dispense with formal enquiry has also observed that in absence of subjective satisfaction being 16 arrived at and reasons being recorded the order to dispense with the enquiry cannot be sustained. Similarly in the present case, not only the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority does not record adequate reasons for dispensing with the ordinary enquiry provided for in the Rules, the respondents have also failed to demonstrate that the satisfaction to dispense with the enquiry was based on objective criteria. Since, the order dated 15th March, 2018 does not pass the test of subjective satisfaction based on objective criteria, to dispense with the enquiry and further since, from the aforesaid order it would be apparent that the identity of the profile in the Facebook posts and the identity of the petitioner had a mismatch, it was all the more obligatory for the respondents to at least issue a show cause on the petitioner.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jaswant Singh Nerwal Etc vs State Of Punjab And Ors. Etc on 14 February, 1991

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Singh (supra) while quoting the aforesaid observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tulsiram Pa Tel (supra) has further 12 added that the decision to dispense with departmental enquiry cannot, therefore, be rested solely on the ipse dixit of the concerned authority. When the satisfaction of the concerned authority is questioned in a Court of law, it is incumbent on those who support the order to show that the satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not the outcome of the whim or caprice of the concerned officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 275 - M M Punchhi - Full Document
1   2 Next