Back
Dr. T.N. Singh and K.M. Pandey, JJ.
Kamal Kishore Bansal v. M.P .E.B.
M.P. No. 1332 of 1992 (G); Decided on 1.2.1993*.
flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼e-iz-½ & fu- 15 rFkk 9 & iwoZ dh tk¡p vikLr ugha dhtk ldrh & vkxs tk¡p dk vkns‘k vuq‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh }kjk lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fn;k tk ldrk gSA
We have found much merit in the contention of Shri Jain that it is the clear mandate of the Apex Court that Rule 15 does not contemplate setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the Inquiry Officer does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. Indeed, there being requirement of giving reasons clearly contemplated in Rule 15 when a "further enquiry" is ordered, their Lordships took the view that there may be cases when some serious defect had crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or for some other reasons when the Inquiry Officer who had conducted the inquiry is to record further evidence and then his report so submitted is to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority. It has also been held that even without doing so the Disciplinary Authority can reconsider the evidence itself and come to it own conclusion under Rule 9, when 'further inquiry' is not ordered and the report of the Inquiry Officer is not accepted. There is, however, no warrant in law as pointed out by their Lordships for appointing another Inquiry Officer for the purpose of re-examination for re-inquiring the whole charges in terms of Rule 15 and that is what is done in this case. AIR 1971 SC 1447 followed. Petition disposed of.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
