Value of CAG Reports

Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 1 at page 24

68. We may, however, point out that since the report is from a constitutional functionary, it commands respect and cannot be brushed aside as such, but it is equally important to examine the comments what respective Ministries have to offer on the CAG's Report. The Ministry can always point out, if there is any mistake in the CAG's report or the CAG has inappropriately appreciated the various issues. For instance, we cannot as such accept the CAG report in the instance case.

 

Judgment becomes binding immediately, no communication from Government is required

AIR 1995 All 152, Para 7  Dr Rohit Gupta v. SN Medical College

 

Difference between locus and right of impleadment

U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, (1995) 2 SCC 326 at page 358

37…. Between the locus and right of impleadment there is a world of difference. The two cannot be equated. A person having locus may not be denied appearance but a person who is necessary party cannot be denied impleadment. The former is permissive, the latter is mandatory. A local body may have locus to appear for the limited purpose but once it opts to keep out it cannot claim to be necessary party whose non-impleadment renders the proceedings invalid.

 

Complexity of a decision-making process cannot be a defence when a grievance is made before the Court by a citizen that his fundamental right to equality has been violated

C.M. Thri Vikrama Varma v. Avinash Mohanty, (2011) 7 SCC 385 at page 396

26. In our view, complexity of a decision-making process cannot be a defence when a grievance is made before the Court by a citizen that his fundamental right to equality has been violated. When such a grievance is made before the Court, the authorities have to justify their impugned decision by placing the relevant material before the Court.

 

Enquiry Officer can offer his views but cannot make strong recommendation for imposition of a particular Punishment.

State of Uttarnchal & Ors. Vs. Kharak Singh

(2008) 8 SCC 236

Paras- 18-19

Disciplinary authority is bound to record reasons for disagreeing with findings of Enquiry Officer and to supply a copy thereof to delinquent, non furnishing recorded reasons from enquiry report prejudice delinquent and hence consequent order of punishment is vitiated.

S.P. Malhotra Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.

(2013) 7 SCC 251

Para- 7 & 13 to 20

Any material which goes into decision making process cannot be denied to employee

‎Oriental Bank of Commerce v. S.S. Sheokand and Anr, 

2014 5 SCC 172