Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (0.36 seconds)
Sambhaji Vishnu Gadekar vs M/O Finance on 30 June, 2023 cites

L.K. Verma vs H.M.T. Ltd. & Anr on 31 January, 2006

52. From the above discussion, it is crystal clear that the applicant had used the abusive words against Smt. S.B. Bhalerao and Ms. H.B. Parkhe. It is worthy of being noted that during the cross-examination of these two witnesses, the abusive words used by the applicant have been stated by the witnesses Smt S.B. Bhalerao and Ms. S.B. Parkhe. To sing a parody 'Konachya Potat Konacha Garbh' with reference to a pregnant woman and accusing her of illicit relationship and using objectionable and indecent words. 'Bolav Tuzya Mardla Bolav' 'Bolav Tuzya Yarala Bolav'' against his lady colleague Smt Parkhe are the acts of extreme insensitivity. This is not only an insensitive act on his part but it also amounts to violation of their modesty. The applicant placed reliance on the case of L.K. Verma Vs. H.M.T. Ltd. & Anr, Appeal (Civil) No.881 of 2006 Supreme Court decided on 31st January, 2006. The decision of the Supreme Court instead of helping him goes against him. In this judgment, it is held that 'verbal abuse has been held to be sufficient for inflicting a punishment of dismissal'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 103 - Full Document

Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh vs Management Of M/S. Usha Breco Ltd. & Anr on 29 April, 2008

In the case of Usha Breco Mazdoor Sung Vs. Management of M/S. Usha Breco Ltd. (supra), It is held that before a departmental proceeding, the standard of proof is not that the misconduct must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt but the standard of proof is as to whether the test of pre- ponderance of probability has been met. The approach of the Labour Court appeared to be that the standard of proof on the Management was very high. When both the parties had adduced evidence, the Labour Court should have 49 OA No.268/2011 borne in mind that the onus of proof loses all its significance for all practical purpose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 93 - S B Sinha - Full Document

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

In the case of A.K. Kraipak Vs. Union of India & Ors, AIR 1970, Supreme Court 150 (V 57 C 35), it is held that the real question is not whether he was biased. It is difficult to prove the state of mind of a person. Therefore, what we have to see is whether there is reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased. Mere suspicion of bias is not sufficient. There must be a reasonable likelihood of bias. In deciding the question of bais we have to take into consideration human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct have to be taken into consideration. In the case at hand, the applicant has alleged bias by the Inquiry Officer. Three Inquiry Officers were changed. The applicant contended that the Inquiry Officer was biased as the Inquiry Officer did not permit him to examine defense witnesses, did not permit him to examine himself. The Inquiry Officer shouted at the witnesses viz. Mrs. H.B. Parkhe & Mrs. Bhalerao when they had said that they were ready to withdraw the complaint against him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 1426 - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Anr. vs Rattan Singh on 22 March, 1977

In the case of State of Haryana And Anr. Vs. Rattan Singh (supra), it is held that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is further held that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. Fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment 48 OA No.268/2011 vitiate the conclusion reached, such findings, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 650 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Apparel Export Promotion Council vs A.K. Chopra on 20 January, 1999

In the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra (supra), the question was does an action against the female employee which is against moral sanctions and does not withstand test of decency and modesty not amount to sexual harassment? Is Physical contact with the female employee an essential ingredient of such a charge? Does the allegation that the superior tried to molest a female employee at the place of work, not constitute an act unbecoming of good conduct and behaviour expected from the superior?
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 566 - V N Khare - Full Document

National Fertilizers Ltd. And Anr. vs P.K. Khanna on 2 September, 2005

In terms of Supreme Court judgment in the case of National Fertilizers Limited and Others Vs. P.K. Khanna, 2005 (7) SCC 597, question of recording reasons by the Appellate Authority, if there is concurrence with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer does not arise. The penalty is not shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved against the applicant. They, 11 OA No.268/2011 therefore, have prayed for dismissal of the application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 96 - R Pal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next