Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.34 seconds)B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr on 30 March, 1999
9. Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid case to the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the criminal case did not involve any complicated question of law and facts which required staying of the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal cases.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Mahesh Kumar Mishra And Ors on 15 March, 2000
The petitioner thereafter moved another application on 6th July, 1973 confirming that he has inspected the relevant documents, though he wanted inspection of more papers and he also prayed that the departmental proceedings be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal cases which prayer was rejected and he was asked to submit his reply within five days. He did not do so and again applied for copies of the documents on 24th July, 1973. The paper Nos. 7 and 15 referred to above were the original receipts and as such the Enquiry Officer directed the police to show them to the petitioner. The petitioner had been making application after application for staying the departmental proceedings on the ground of the pendency of the criminal cases which application was rejected time and again and the petitioner for reasons best known to him neither appeared before the Enquiry Officer nor filed any reply. The Enquiry Officer had considered the documents, which were available on record and found the charges to have been proved. The Collector, who was the appointing authority after considering the enquiry report directed issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he be not dismissed from service. We further find that the petitioner has made an endorsement on 23rd October, 1973 that he has received the copy of the Enquiry Report and copy of the show cause notice. Time and again opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his reply to the show cause notice but the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity and instead kept on harping that the disciplinary proceedings be stayed till the disposal of the criminal case. As the petitioner had not filed any reply, the Collector, Aligarh, after considering the report had passed the order of punishment of dismissal from service. The Tribunal has dealt with the matter in great detail and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend and the entire proceeding conforms to the principles of natural justice. We do not find any good reason to take a contrary view to set aside the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal. We are of the further opinion that the petitioner has not suffered any prejudice for non-supply of the documents, if any, as the petitioner had not submitted any reply to the charge sheet before the Enquiry Officer or to the show cause notice before the disciplinary authority and did not plead or establish any prejudice and, therefore, the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding non-supply of the documents would not be applicable in the present case.
Kashinath Dikshita vs Union Of India (Uoi)And Ors. on 15 May, 1986
Senior Superintendent Of Post Offices, ... vs A. Gopalan on 21 February, 1997
In the case of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices v. A. Gopalan , the view expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Nelson Motis (supra) was fully endorsed by the Apex Court.
South Bengal State Transport Corpn vs Swapan Kumar Mitra And Ors on 3 February, 2006
12. The aforesaid decisions have been followed by the Apex Court in the case of South Bengal State Transport Corporation v. Sapan Kumar Mitra and Ors. , wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
Nelson Motis vs Union Of India And Another on 2 September, 1992
In the case of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices v. A. Gopalan , the view expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Nelson Motis (supra) was fully endorsed by the Apex Court.
1