Judgments - Departmental Enquiry
Shri Dhanraj Punaji Chavan Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors
Ganesh Prasad Garg Vs. General Manager, South East Coal Limited & others
In the present case, as already discussed by this Court that the authority which has issued the charge sheet has already been vested with the power to issue the charge sheet, nothing survives for this Court on the question of framing of charges as it is for the competent authority only to decide the case on merits in accordance with law. Full Judgment
DINARAM BORA VS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
SUSHANTA CHAKRABORTY VS THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS
RAJESH BABU Vs. MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING & ORS.
SHRI PARESH BARUAH VS STATE OF ASSAM & 3 ORS
THE MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SMITA SHARAD DESHMUKH & ANR.
It is a well-settled principle that the High Court will not re-appreciate the evidence but will only see whether there is evidence in support of the impugned conclusion. The court has to take the evidence as it stands and its only limited jurisdiction is Full Judgment
H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD Vs. MAHESH DAHIYA
“Hence it has to be held that when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer’s report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. That Full Judgment
S.B.I & ORS. Vs. NEELAM NAG & ANR.
It is well-settled that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. However, no straightjacket formula can be spelt out and the Court has to keep in mind the broad approach to be adopted in such matters on case to case basis. The contour of the approach to be adopted by the Court has been delineated in series Full Judgment
BALKAR SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS
SOHAN LAL KAPOOR V/s CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE & ANR
BRIJ BIHARI SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.(R-1,4,7)
It is well settled that a person who is required to answer a charge imposed should know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. The delinquent must be given fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to cross-examine the witnesses who prove the charge. The delinquent must also be given a chance to Full Judgment
JAGDISH LAL GAMBHIR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.
RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR
But the question is, whether dismissal is the only option in such situations where an employee is found unfit for service. We have no doubt in our mind that indiscipline of any sort cannot be tolerated at all in a disciplined force. However, in the factual background of the appellant which we have referred to above, the disciplinary authority or at least the appellate authority, should have considered whether a punishment other than dismissal would have been Full Judgment
MURAD ABDUL MULANI Vs. SALMA BABU SHAIKH & ORS.
KHURSHEED AHMAD KHAN VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
In absence thereof the second marriage is a misconduct under the Conduct Rules- Polygamy was not integral part of religion and monogamy was a reform within the power of the State under Article 25.- Even if bigamy be regarded as an integral part of Hindu religion, Rule 27 of the U.P. Government Servants' Conduct Rules requiring permission of the Government before contracting such marriage must be held to come under the protection of Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution- What is permitted or not prohibited by a religion does not become Full Judgment
RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
In view of the law laid down by this Court, we are of the view that if any person who is or was a legal practitioner, including a retired Hon'ble Judge is appointed as Inquiry Officer in an inquiry initiated against an employee, the denial of assistance of legal practitioner to the charged employee would be unfair. Full Judgment
DIWAN SINGH Vs. L.I.C. & ORS.
This Court in a catena of judgments held that the loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated and that the sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor which is impermissible in law. When an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of misappropriating the Corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee Full Judgment