Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)

Syndicate Bank & Ors vs Venkatesh Gururao Kurati on 31 January, 2006

15. In this case, due to non-supply of additional documents the applicant's defence has been (3ffected as contended by the applicant. As per the ratio decided in the case of Syndicate Bank vs. V. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati (supra), non-supply of documents will vitiate the proceedings if these documents have been relied on by the 10 during inquiry in proving the charges against the applicant. It is seen from the pleadings of the parties or from the inquiry report or from the impugned orders, it is not clear whether additional documents requested by the applicant were relied on by the 1.0. or the disciplinary authority for inquiry or for proving the charges against the applicant. Applicant in his pleadings has made no such claim. Hence, the applicant has failed to prove that non- supply of these documents has vitiated the inquiry and the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 112 - H K Sema - Full Document

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

In view of above, it is clear that additional documents approved by the 10 to be supplied to the applicant were not supplied to him and this fact was overlooked by the authorities. As per the ratio of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kashinath Dikshita Vs. Union of India (1986) 3 sec, 229 and State of UP V. C.S.Sharma AIR 1968 SC 158, it is essential to supply additional documents to charged officer, otherwise the T 9 charged officer will not get reasonable opportunity to defend the charges.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 216 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr vs Sri C.S. Sharma on 1 May, 1967

In view of above, it is clear that additional documents approved by the 10 to be supplied to the applicant were not supplied to him and this fact was overlooked by the authorities. As per the ratio of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kashinath Dikshita Vs. Union of India (1986) 3 sec, 229 and State of UP V. C.S.Sharma AIR 1968 SC 158, it is essential to supply additional documents to charged officer, otherwise the T 9 charged officer will not get reasonable opportunity to defend the charges.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 108 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1