1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -248
976. ‘Holding fresh inquiry after long lapse of time – unjust’.
[M.L. Sharma V Chief Mining Advisor ATR 1989 (2) CAT 225 (Hyderabad)]
977. ‘When charge is denied and malafides are ascribed oral inquiry cannot be dispensed without assigning reasons.’
[Union of India & ors V K.K.Garg (1989) 9 ATC (Jabalpur) 1988(4) SLJ (CAT) 1002]
978. “Disciplinary Authority can order de novo enquiry from the stage of its vitiation”
[N.S Manjunath V the Supdt of Post Offices Tumkur & Ors 1989(2) SLJ (CAT) 10 (Bangalore)]
979. “Admission itself does not relieve the burden of proving the charge but should be put to the delinquent while questioning”
[Ganshyam Kabat V UOI 1989 (10) ATC 774 (Cuttack)]
980. “It is for the department to establish positively the allegations and not for the delinquent to disprove the imputation”
[Ponnamal T.Abraham V Divisional Engineer ATR 1989 (2) CAT 233 (Ernakulum)]
Post a Comment