Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.26 seconds)Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
M/S Stanzen Toyotetsu India P.Ltd vs Girish V & Ors on 21 January, 2014
19. At this stage, it is also pertinent to refer the judgment
referred by the Mr. Krishna, learned counsel for the Petitioner in the
case of StanzenToyotetsu India (P) Ltd. Vs. Girish & Ors. (2014) 3
SCC 636. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon para 8 and
15 of the said judgment which is quoted herein below:-
Chairman Cum Managing Director ... vs Sri Rabindranath Choubey on 27 May, 2020
20. Similar issue was also taken into consideration by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v.
Rabindranath Choubey (2020) 18 SCC 71 and it has been observed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "in view of various decisions, it is
apparent that under Rule 34.2 of the CDA Rules, inquiry can be held
24
2025:JHHC:19356
in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service and
appropriate major and minor punishment......"
Ramesh Chandra Sharma vs Punjab National Bank & Anr on 18 May, 2007
22. It would also be profitable to refer the judgment passed
in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank
(2007) 9 SCC 15 para-13 and 22 as under:-
Bhagirathi Jena vs Board Of Directors, O.S.F.G. And Ors on 31 March, 1999
In the absence of any such provision, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has also held in the case of Bhagirathi Jina versus Board of
Directors, OSFC, (1999) 3, SCC 666, relevant para are 6 & 7 which
is as under:-
Eastern Coalfields Limited vs Rabindra Kumar Bharti on 7 April, 2022
18. At this stage, it is profitable to refer the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which is on similar facts and has been
decided against the delinquent. For brevity, para-13 to 17 of the
20
2025:JHHC:19356
judgment rendered in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Rabindra
Kumar Bharti reported in (2022) 12, SCC 390, are quoted here in
below.
Rabindra Kr. Bharati vs Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors on 10 February, 2021
When the respondent was faced with the disciplinary proceeding,
he approached the High Court. Apparently, he sought stay of the
proceedings. The High Court did not deem it appropriate to grant
stay of the disciplinary proceeding. Instead, as noticed by us by
order dated 29-6-2017, the proceedings were allowed to be
continued. According to the appellant(s) proper enquiry was held
and the respondent participated. As to whether the enquiry was
held properly or not is not a matter on which we do express our
opinion. However, at the end of the enquiry as held by the
appellant in view of the order [Rabindra Kumar Bharti v. Eastern
Coalfields Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 3460] passed by the High
Court the appellant sought permission to pass the final order, or
the appropriate order of penalty. This led to the disposal of the
writ petition itself by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single
Judge in the judgment noticed that this is a case where the
respondent had already revealed his defence by participating in
the proceedings. It is further found that order dated 29-6-2017,
which permitted the enquiry to be continued was not challenged.
The learned Single Judge accordingly permitted the disciplinary
proceedings to attain finality at the hands of the disciplinary
authority. The disciplinary authority accordingly passed an order
dismissing the respondent from service. No doubt this is during the
pendency of the appeal.