Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.20 seconds)
Arun Shah vs Union Of India Through on 31 October, 2013 cites

Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd vs Girja Shankar Pant & Ors on 18 October, 2000

14. We have considered these grounds and will now examine them seriatim. We do not find force in the submission that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated because the original papers/files were not shown to the applicant. It is observed that at no point in time applicant had questioned the veracity of those documents and no prejudice has been claimed to have been caused because of this reason except as a procedural flaw. The Honble Apex Court judgments in the cases of Mohd. Ramzan Khan and in Girja Shankar Pant (supra) are, therefore, not relevant in this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 410 - U C Banerjee - Full Document

B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995

28. The charge that has been established is the fact that having once asked for certified copies of certain documents on his own, the applicant failed to ensure compliance to his own direction. We are of the view that even if the charge as stated in the charge-memo is taken as established, the failure on the part of the applicant is procedural. Nowhere, it has been alleged that there was any nexus between the applicant and the VO or any evidence of collusion. Considered in this perspective the penalty imposed on the applicant appears to be disproportionately high and falls in the category where it shocks the judicial conscience [B.C. Chaturvedi (supra)]. Our conclusion in this regard is in consonance with the recommendations of the Executive Committee on the quantum of punishment to the extent that the punishment imposed on the applicant is disproportionate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 2256 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next