Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.28 seconds)
The vs The on 14 March, 2008 cites

Canara Bank vs V.K. Awasthy on 31 March, 2005

In Canara Bank vs. V.K. Awasthy, the Supreme Court explained the principles of natural justice and their importance. The court observed that rules of natural justice are recognised by all civilized states as rules of supreme importance when a quasi­judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. The rules of natural justice though not codified canons, are nonetheless principles ingrained into the conscience of every man. These principles are well settled through judicial decisions. Over the years two rules have been evolved as representing the principles of natural justice in judicial process, including quasi­judicial and administrative process. They constitute the basic elements of fair hearing, having their roots in the innate sense of man for fair play and justice which is not the preserve of any particular race or country. The first rule is 'memo judex in causa sua' or 'memo debet esse judex in propria causa sua' i.e., 'no man shall be judge in his own cause'. The second rule is audi alteram partem i.e, 'hear the other side' or no one should be condemned unheard. ................................... The fundamental principle of audi alteram partem has, however, over the time been made subject to certain exceptions both in public and private employment law. Under the second proviso to article 311 (2) of the Constitution certain exceptions have been laid down to the general principle of audi alteram partem in respect of civil servants. A civil servant can be removed, dismissed or reduced in rank by way of punishment without any enquiry or notice under the following circumstances:
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 353 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Workmen Of Messrs Firestone Tyre ... vs Management & Others (With Connected ... on 6 March, 1973

76. Under Section 11A the powers exercisable by Tribunals are much wider, inasmuch as, the satisfaction of the management both in respect of the proving of the misconduct and award of quantum of punishment by the management, is substituted by their satisfaction. This legal position is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court - See Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Management, (1973) 1SCC 813; also see Scooters India Ltd vs. Labour Court, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 31. RELIEF
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 654 - Full Document
1   2 Next