Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.29 seconds)
Birendra Kumar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 25 October, 2021 cites

Gajendra Prasad Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 January, 2017

; 21.04.2014 was the date fixed for the departmental enquiry when the petitioner had submitted a request for adjournment on the ground of his illness. In hot haste, on Patna High Court CWJC No.5376 of 2017 dt.25-10-2021 7/13 21.04.2014 itself, the enquiring authority submitted his perfunctory report without any evidence, holding all the charges against the petitioner to have been proved. He thirdly submits that the petitioner had given a detailed representation against the report of the enquiring authority before the disciplinary authority explaining as to why the said report should not be accepted and the charges should be held 'not proved'. The disciplinary authority, however, based on a perfunctory enquiry report, passed the impugned order dated 30.09.2014 imposing punishment of dismissal from service without any application of mind inasmuch as the said order does not at all disclose any application of mind over the petitioner's representation against the report of the enquiring authority. He has further argued that the petitioner's appeal was also rejected by the appellate authority by an order dated 27.12.2017 on erroneous consideration that the petitioner could not mention any fact in his memo of appeal, which was not considered during the departmental enquiry and the grounds taken in the appeal were the same as taken in his written statement of defence. He has placed reliance on Supreme Court's decision in case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, coordinate Bench decision in case of Vijendra Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in Patna High Court CWJC No.5376 of 2017 dt.25-10-2021 8/13 2019(4) PLJR 1046 and decision rendered on 31.08.2021 in C.W.J.C. No. 7631 of 2016 (Mithilesh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Others) in support of his argument that the impugned order imposing punishment of dismissal from service is illegal, arbitrary and in complete violation of principles of natural justice.
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 5 - J Saran - Full Document

Mithilesh Kumar & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 30 October, 2018

; 21.04.2014 was the date fixed for the departmental enquiry when the petitioner had submitted a request for adjournment on the ground of his illness. In hot haste, on Patna High Court CWJC No.5376 of 2017 dt.25-10-2021 7/13 21.04.2014 itself, the enquiring authority submitted his perfunctory report without any evidence, holding all the charges against the petitioner to have been proved. He thirdly submits that the petitioner had given a detailed representation against the report of the enquiring authority before the disciplinary authority explaining as to why the said report should not be accepted and the charges should be held 'not proved'. The disciplinary authority, however, based on a perfunctory enquiry report, passed the impugned order dated 30.09.2014 imposing punishment of dismissal from service without any application of mind inasmuch as the said order does not at all disclose any application of mind over the petitioner's representation against the report of the enquiring authority. He has further argued that the petitioner's appeal was also rejected by the appellate authority by an order dated 27.12.2017 on erroneous consideration that the petitioner could not mention any fact in his memo of appeal, which was not considered during the departmental enquiry and the grounds taken in the appeal were the same as taken in his written statement of defence. He has placed reliance on Supreme Court's decision in case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, coordinate Bench decision in case of Vijendra Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in Patna High Court CWJC No.5376 of 2017 dt.25-10-2021 8/13 2019(4) PLJR 1046 and decision rendered on 31.08.2021 in C.W.J.C. No. 7631 of 2016 (Mithilesh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Others) in support of his argument that the impugned order imposing punishment of dismissal from service is illegal, arbitrary and in complete violation of principles of natural justice.
Patna High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 1 - A K Trivedi - Full Document

Director (Marketing) Indian Oil Corpn. ... vs Santosh Kumar on 23 May, 2006

13. Further, right of appeal is a valuable right. It is the duty of the appellate authority to deal with the grounds taken in the appeal by an appellant. The Supreme Court in case of Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 147, has emphasized the necessity of recording of reason in appellate order as absence of reasons amounts to non- application of mind.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 130 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

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

8. Mr. Verma has rightly placed reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in case of Roop Singh Negi (supra). The Patna High Court CWJC No.5376 of 2017 dt.25-10-2021 10/13 Supreme Court has further held that charge of corruption against an employee has grave consequence of incurring punishment of dismissal from service as the only recourse, which must be proved to the hilt in a departmental proceeding.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 1059 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1