Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.22 seconds)
K H Vaniya vs Posts on 31 January, 2025 cites

State Of Punjab And Ors vs Ram Singh Ex. Constable on 24 July, 1992

9. From perusal of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directions and the facts as mentioned hereinabove as well as the judgments referred herein above Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in C.P. Singh(supra), it is clear that although the scope of judicial review, in the cases of disciplinary proceedings, by the Courts/Tribunals is limited, however, Tribunals can intervene in the case wherein the decisions have been taken by the competent authority in the absence of any evidence on record or the findings are perverse and bias or are taken without following the principles of natural justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 405 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Ranjeet Singh & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 2009

In this regard, it is apt to mention that in an identical case, the CAT, Jaipur Bench in OA NO.556/2015 (Jeewan Ram Meena vs. Union of India through Secretary Department of Post and others) decided on 31.5.2024 wherein the applicant aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority for recovery of huge amount of recovery of Rs.1,00,666/- in pursuance of the term 'minor penalty' under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules had approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the AT Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 0 - Cited by 17 - P C Tatia - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs O.P. Saxena, ... on 5 August, 1997

The CAT Jaipur Bench by referring the relied upon judgment and order i.e. judgment dated 5.4.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in CWP No.21729/2023 and connected petition (UOI and others vs. K.L. Disthwania) whereby the orders passed by the CAT Jaipur Bench in a similar case for refund of amount recovered from the Government employee in the case where the employee was erroneously held to be responsible for negligence in allowing payments in excess and has contributed to a large fraud committed by somebody else, further in OA No.245/2013 (Adisal ::54 :: O.A.No.232/2022 & connected matters Meena vs. Union of India and others) decided on 4.8.2022 by the CAT Jaipur Bench wherein it was alleged against the applicant that while he was working as Laser Assistant at Bheror Head Post Office he had not checked and verified the signature of depositor with the signature of warrant of payment related to fraudulent transactions and eventually was held responsible for misappropriation of Government money, the Tribunal in absence of quantum of loss levelled against the applicant was not quantified and ascertained by the disciplinary authority. Moreover the applicant had been considered to be Ahmedabad subsidiary offender, the respondent in an arbitrary manner imposed penalty of recovery of huge amount and quashed the charge memorandum as well as the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the Jaipur Bench in the said OA 556/2015, held that the disciplinary authority without determining the amount of quantum of loss actually incurred to the Government and the extent of the role of the applicant, who the respondents themselves had identified to be a subsidiary offender, in relation to other involved persons and the proportionate share to be recovered consequently from the applicant, the said conclusion and finding reached by the disciplinary authority was held to be suffered from the legal infirmities and accordingly, the impugned charge memorandum along with the order of punishment of recovery imposed by the disciplinary authority as well as order of the appellate authority were quashed and set aside and directed the Postal Department to refund the amount if any recovered from the applicant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 64 - Full Document

Meena Jayendra Thakur vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 September, 1999

The CAT Jaipur Bench by referring the relied upon judgment and order i.e. judgment dated 5.4.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in CWP No.21729/2023 and connected petition (UOI and others vs. K.L. Disthwania) whereby the orders passed by the CAT Jaipur Bench in a similar case for refund of amount recovered from the Government employee in the case where the employee was erroneously held to be responsible for negligence in allowing payments in excess and has contributed to a large fraud committed by somebody else, further in OA No.245/2013 (Adisal ::54 :: O.A.No.232/2022 & connected matters Meena vs. Union of India and others) decided on 4.8.2022 by the CAT Jaipur Bench wherein it was alleged against the applicant that while he was working as Laser Assistant at Bheror Head Post Office he had not checked and verified the signature of depositor with the signature of warrant of payment related to fraudulent transactions and eventually was held responsible for misappropriation of Government money, the Tribunal in absence of quantum of loss levelled against the applicant was not quantified and ascertained by the disciplinary authority. Moreover the applicant had been considered to be Ahmedabad subsidiary offender, the respondent in an arbitrary manner imposed penalty of recovery of huge amount and quashed the charge memorandum as well as the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the Jaipur Bench in the said OA 556/2015, held that the disciplinary authority without determining the amount of quantum of loss actually incurred to the Government and the extent of the role of the applicant, who the respondents themselves had identified to be a subsidiary offender, in relation to other involved persons and the proportionate share to be recovered consequently from the applicant, the said conclusion and finding reached by the disciplinary authority was held to be suffered from the legal infirmities and accordingly, the impugned charge memorandum along with the order of punishment of recovery imposed by the disciplinary authority as well as order of the appellate authority were quashed and set aside and directed the Postal Department to refund the amount if any recovered from the applicant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 31 - Full Document
1   2 Next