cites: 89521140

Union Of India & Ors vs J. Ahmed on 7 March, 1979

9. Further, according to the applicant the charge against him cannot be construed as misconduct. Once there was no ill-motive, the action of the employee cannot be construed as misconduct. The Honble Apex Court has defined misconduct in the case of Union of India vs. J. Ahmed (AIR 1979 SC 1022). The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:-

Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 473 - D A Desai - Full Document

Inspector Prem Chand vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Others on 5 April, 2007

10. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Inspector Prem Chand vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi JT 2007 (5) SC 294 wherein it has been held as under:-

Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 226 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Ors vs Ram Singh Ex. Constable on 24 July, 1992

In State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Ram Singh Ex. Constable [1992 (4) SCC 54], it was stated:

Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 405 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

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

11. The Apex Court in its judgment in State of U.P. & Others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha 2010 (2) AISLJ 59 has held that the departmental enquiry cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:-

Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 718 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 19 December, 2008

12. The Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others 2009 (2) SCC 570 held that departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings and mere production of documents is not enough but its contents have to be proved by examining witnesses. The relevant part of the said judgment is as under:-

Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 1059 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Shri R.R. Dhavle vs Union Of India on 16 April, 2014

An authorized representative of a firm cannot be considered as a witness in the matter. Even otherwise, it is an admitted fact that the so called authorized representative himself has not appeared in the enquiry proceedings and deposed against the applicant. 13. This Tribunal has considered this issue in detail in OA No.1767/2013 Shri R.R. Dhavle vs. Union of India and Ors. decided on 16.04.2014. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search