Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.50 seconds)
Vijay Pal Singh Son Of Sri Kedar Singh Ex ... vs Union Of India on 31 March, 2011 cites

State Of Uttaranchal & Ors vs Kharak Singh on 13 August, 2008

(a) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. (State of Uttaranchal vs Kharak Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236) Inquiry to be strictly in accordance with rules, charges should be specific and definite giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges  has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively - Union of India and Others vs Gyan Chand Chattar  (2009) 12 SCC 78
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 227 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Gyan Chand Chattar on 28 May, 2009

(a) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. (State of Uttaranchal vs Kharak Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236) Inquiry to be strictly in accordance with rules, charges should be specific and definite giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges  has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively - Union of India and Others vs Gyan Chand Chattar  (2009) 12 SCC 78
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 229 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Sinha on 2 February, 2010

(c) An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. .... State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha,(2010) 2 SCC 772 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 718 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Kashinath Dikshita vs Union Of India (Uoi)And Ors. on 15 May, 1986

(d) And no one facing a departmental enquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In the absence of such copies, how can the employee concerned prepare his defence, cross-examine the witnesses, and point out the inconsistencies with a view to show that the allegations are incredible? (Kashinath Dikshita vs Union of India (1986) 3 SCC 229)
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 216 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Prakash Kumar Tandon on 17 December, 2008

(f) Summoning a witness by the delinquent officer should be considered by the enquiry officer. It was obligatory on the part of the enquiry officer to pass an order in the said application. He could not refuse to consider the same. It is not for the Railway Administration to contend that it is for them to consider as to whether any witness should be examined by it or not. It was for the enquiry officer to take a decision thereupon. A disciplinary proceeding must be fairly conducted. An enquiry officer is a quasi-judicial authority. He, therefore, must perform his functions fairly and reasonably which is even otherwise the requirement of the principles of natural justice. Union of India v. Prakash Kumar Tandon,(2009) 2 SCC 541 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 140 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Moni Shankar vs Union Of India And Another on 4 March, 2008

(g) The mandatory requirement of the inquiry officer asking the questions on the circumstances appearing against the charged officer after the prosecution closes its evidence when the charged officer himself does not enter the witness box, vide Rule 14(18) of the CCS(CC&A) rules, 1965 and corresponding provisions in the Railway Servants (Department and Appeal) Rules, has to be properly should be fulfilled to in strict sense. ( Moni Shankar v. Union of India,(2008) 3 SCC 484, wherein the Apex Court has held -
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 324 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Bishamber Das Dogra on 26 May, 2009

(h) Principles of natural justice cannot be put into a straitjacket formula and its observance would depend upon the fact situation of each case. Therefore, the application of the principles of natural justice has to be understood with reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of a particular case. Union of India v. Bishamber Das Dogra,(2009) 13 SCC 102
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 118 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

M.V. Bijlani vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006

(i) Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. The enquiry officer cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with. (M.V. Bijlani vs Union of India (2006) 5 SCC 88)
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 837 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next