Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.08 seconds)
M.K. Mathulla vs N.N. Wanchoo And Anr. on 21 January, 1970 cites

State Of Orissa vs Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors on 7 February, 1967

25. The first contention urged by Mr. Daphtary is that ex facie the impugned letter not only brands the petitioner as a dishonest man but also prevents his being associated in future with any organisations of the Government of India or public undertakings controlled by the Government and requests the State Governments and the Governments of Union Territories to take similar action in relation to the organisations and undertakings of these Governments. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard and meeting or explaining the allegations made against him either at the stage of inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation or the Central Vigilance Commission or by the Government before respondent No. 1 issued the impugned letter. It is true that the action taken by the respondent is administrative in character but he submits it is no longer in doubt that even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice after informing the person concerned of the evidence in support thereof and after giving him an opportunity of being heard and meeting or explaining that evidence. Reliance for the argument is placed on two decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, and A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1001 - J C Shah - Full Document

A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969

25. The first contention urged by Mr. Daphtary is that ex facie the impugned letter not only brands the petitioner as a dishonest man but also prevents his being associated in future with any organisations of the Government of India or public undertakings controlled by the Government and requests the State Governments and the Governments of Union Territories to take similar action in relation to the organisations and undertakings of these Governments. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard and meeting or explaining the allegations made against him either at the stage of inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation or the Central Vigilance Commission or by the Government before respondent No. 1 issued the impugned letter. It is true that the action taken by the respondent is administrative in character but he submits it is no longer in doubt that even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice after informing the person concerned of the evidence in support thereof and after giving him an opportunity of being heard and meeting or explaining that evidence. Reliance for the argument is placed on two decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, and A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 1426 - Full Document
1   2 Next