Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Kiritbhai Shankar Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 27 December, 2018

Hemantkumar Chitranjan Raval vs State Of Gujarat on 25 March, 2022

24. The coordinate bench of this Court in case of Kiritbhai Shankar Patel (supra) has considered the aspect of delay in inquiry proceedings at every stage and where such delay would vitiate the inquiry Page 19 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 31 20:28:27 IST 2022 C/SCA/5580/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2022 proceedings. Considering the various decisions of the Supreme Court in paragraph nos.5 and 6, the Court observed as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Chaturbhai H Dhalwania vs State Of Gujarat on 14 December, 2021

4. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the facts as noted hereinabove, there are two issues which arise for consideration before this Court, one is with regard to the delay in initiating and completion of the departmental proceedings and the second is with regard to the non-consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner to the final show cause notice dated 29.10.2012 issued to the petitioner. With regard to the aspect of delay, the Coordinate Bench in the case of Kiritbhai Shankar Patel (supra), after surveying various decisions of this Court, has held thus:-
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Vasantkumar Kesarbhai Parikh vs State Of Gujarat on 23 February, 2022

8.0. We are in complete agreement with the observations so made, no case for interference unless concurrent findings of fact even otherwise was made. With respect to the judgment rendered in the case of Kiritbhai Shankar Patel (supra) and Kanubhai Kubavat (supra) relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant are totally on a different factual basis and same are not applicable to the facts of the present case. No case for interference is made out. The appeal is therefore, liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document

Prakash Arunkumar Trivedi vs Narmada Water Resource And Kalpsar ... on 13 September, 2023

5.5.1 Quashing the charge memo, it was held that protracted action against government employee would operate prejudicial to him and has to be avoided, "Under the circumstances, allowing the respondent to proceed further Page 5 of 7 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:36:26 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15393/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2023 undefined with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer." (Para 12) 5.6 In Kiritbhai Shankar Patel v. State of Gujarat [2019 (2) GLR 1079] same question was examined by this Court. Inquiry was initiated against the petitioner after gap of 10 years from the incident. Petitioner was found to be not guilty by the inquiry officer. Disciplinary authority took seven years in expressing its disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - N V Anjaria - Full Document

Vinaykant S. Brahmbhatt vs State Of Gujarat on 7 August, 2020

2. Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner retired on 30.11.2016 from the post of Chief Engineer and on that day after office hours, at about 6:45 pm. [18.45 hours], the charge-sheet of the departmental inquiry in respect of events took place more than four years before the institution of the departmental proceedings. Relying upon Rule 24(b)(ii) of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002 and relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of P V Mahadevan vs. M.D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board [2005 LawSuit (SC) 1062], M.V.Bijlani vs. Union of India [2006 LawSuit (SC) 277], Kiritbhai Shankar Patel vs. State of Gujarat [2018 LawSuit(Guj) 1182] and order dated 04.10.2019 in case of Priyavadan Ramanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 18885 of 2018 of this Court, he vehemently Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 08 00:59:03 IST 2020 C/SCA/9116/2020 ORDER submits that the institution of the departmental proceedings is barred. He therefore submitted that the petition requires consideration and during the pendency of the petition, the departmental proceedings needs to be stayed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A G Uraizee - Full Document
1