Canara Bank and ors. Vs. Shri Debasis Das and ors.

Decided On : Mar-12-2003

Court : Supreme Court of India

LAW: the Inquiry Report

NORP: J.1, R.

ORG: the Canara Bank Officer Employees', Government of India, Bank, the Calcutta High Court, Bank, Bank, Bank, Shri K.V. Nayak, the Inquiry Authority, the Presenting Officer's, The Disciplinary Authority, the Presenting Officer's, The Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority, the Inquiry Authority, the Inquiry Authority, 29.9.1995 Disciplinary Authority, Bank, the Calcutta High Court, Learned Single, the High Court, Bank, Bank, Bank, the Appellate Court, Court, the Appellate Authority, The Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority, Learned Single, the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority, the Government Handwriting and Questioned Documents', the Division Bench, inter alia, Learned Single, the High Court, the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority, mae, the Appellate Authority, the Inquiry Officer, the Appellate Authority, Bank, the High Court's, The Inquiring Authority, Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority, the Inquiring Authority, the Disciplinary Authority, The Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority, the Inquiring Authority, the Inquiring Authority, the Inquiring Authority, the Disciplinary Authority, the Inquiring Authority, Regulation 6, the Appellate Authority, Bank, Justice, audi, Notice, the 'Magna Carta', Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works, Ray v. Local Government Board, General Council of Medical Education & Registration, AC 627, Tribunal, the Board of Education, AC 179:80 LJKB, State, the Board of Education, Court, Board, Board, Earl of Selbourne, LO, District Board of Works, Privy council, Plumstead District Board of Works, AC 229, Plumstead District Board of Works, Hookings, Smethwick Local Board of Health, M.R., WB, the Court of Appeal, CJ, fairmount Investments Ltd., State for Environment, LJ, State for Home Affairs Ex Parte Hosenball 1977, Coke, altera pars', Bosewell, Court, Wilberforce, Glynn v. Keele University, Cinnamond, British Airports Authority, Magistrates' Court, The New Zealand Court, the Thames Valley Police Forces, Substance, 3rd Edn, 5th Edn, 5th Edn, State Bank of Patiala, Court, Court, A.P., the Appellate Authority, Court, the Court/Tribunal, the Court/Tribunal, The Court/Tribunal, the Courts/Tribunals, the Court/Tribunal, the Court/Tribunal, Union Bank of India, the High Court, the High Court, the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority, the High Court, The High Court, Bank, Bank, the High Court, Bank, the High Court, the High Court, The High Court, Court, ECIL, The Court/Tribunal, Punjab National Bank and Ors, the Disciplinary Authority, Learned Single, Learned Single, Learned Single, Learned Single, the High Court, Bank, the High Court

DATE: 1976, 12.12.1987, 23.3.1989, 25.5.1989, residential quarter, 28.8.1989, 13.9.1989, 10514(W)/1989, 28.1.1991, 24.11.1992, 13.9.1989, 13.9.1989, 10 days i.e. before 12.4.1995, 10 days, 19.4.1995, 2.5.1995, 12.7.1995, 10.8.1995, 7.8.1995, 12.8.1995, 30 days', 11.10.1995, 6.11.1995, 13.9.1989, 9707, 1997, 15 days, 8, 15 days of the date, 1215, 1963, 1914, 1943, 1911, 1985, recent years, 1877, 1884, 1884, 1967(2) B617, 1976, 1255, the years, 1418, 1605, 1971, 1278, 1971, 1980, 1996, LR 351, 1998, 1118, 1996, 1964, 1969, 1990, 1991, 1975, 1996, 1994, 1994, '29, the year 1989, 17.2.1989, the year 1988, para 31

CARDINAL: Four, 14.12.1990, three, three, 6.4.1991, 23.4.1991, three, one, 24.11.92, 13.9.1989, 21.5.1994, three, 7.6.1994, 2.5.1995, 19.5.1995, 2.7.1995, 4.8.1995, 13.10.1995, 5.2.1996, 29.1.1996, 8.1.1997, 27.1.1997, one, 18, 18, 8, 7, 1, 6, 2, 3, 4, 4, 6, 18).11, 18, two, one, 143, 414, 1, 160, 83, 86, 796, 10, 229:54, 81, 1.8, 3, 614, 10, 229, 39, 1890(24, 712, 569, 1978]2SCR621, 1, two, 1605, two, 1999]3SCR1173, one, 2, 368, 8), 1, 72, 2, 344, six, 10.036, one, 28, 9, three, one, four, three, 1998)IILLJ809SC

PERSON: Debasis Das, Enquiry Officers, Manger, K.V. Nayak, Presenting Officer's, Order, Howrah Branch, Inquiry Officer, P.P. Rao, Buckmaster, Edward Coke, Adam, Adam, Summer, Hamilton, Wright, Wright, Rice, Loreburn, Wright, Lebura, Cranworth, James Dunber Smith, JC, Robort P. Collier, John Specman v., Earl of Selbourne, John Specman v., Earl of Selbourne, Vionet, Esher, Vionet, Ridge, Baldwin, Harman LJ, Parker, Geoffrey Lane, Rep.114, licet dixerit, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, Malloch, Aberdeen Corpn, Fannaran, Suppl, p.89, Woolf, Lloyd v. McMohan 1987, McCarthy, Grant 1959 NZLR 1014, Garner Administrative Law, Ridge, Baldwin, Magarry, J., John v. Rees, Ackner, Bingham, D.H. Clark, Malloch, Glynn, Folkes, Craig, De Smith, Administrative Law, S.K. Sharma, Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. : AIR1996SC2736, Chinnappa Reddy, Gadde Venktaeswara Rao v. Govt, Charan Lal Sahu v. Union, B. Karunakara, Vishwa Mohan, Bench

PRODUCT: 30.9.1991, Shri K.V. Nayak

ORDINAL: first, first, first, first, first, second, first, first

TIME: 1.4.1995 the minutes

WORK_OF_ART: the Enquiry Report, 2 All ER, 'Should Public Law Ramedies be Discretionary

GPE: Regulation, Regulation, Regulation, thou, L.J., U.K., L.C., Spackman v. Plumstead, Drew v. Drew, Arthur, S.C., Arthur, S.C., MR, Bhagawati, Straughton, L.J., Canada, p.596, pp.526

LOC: Regina

MONEY: 48, 1966]2SCR172

EVENT: AC 40