Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 2007 (1.93 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India Etc. Etc vs K.V. Jankiraman Etc. Etc on 27 August, 1991

Mahavir Singh vs Dda & Ors on 3 December, 2012

16. Learned counsel for the respondent made an endeavour to contend that in the light of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. K. V. Janakiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109 the Sealed Cover Procedure can be resorted to only after Charge Memo is received or a charge-sheet is filed and that unless such an event had happened at the relevant time the Government employee cannot be denied of his promotion, if he is otherwise entitled to it. Learned counsel also submitted that Janakiraman was since followed in Union of India v. Dr. Sudha Salhan, (1998) 3 SCC 394 and Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999) 5 SCC 762. The clauses of second paragraph of the Sealed Cover Procedure considered in Janakiraman were not those involved in the present case and hence that decision is of no avail to the respondent. In the other two decisions the facts warranted application of the ratio contained in Janakiraman. The added factor in these two cases was that the public servant concerned had been exonerated of the charges framed by the criminal Courts. In the present case the respondent is still facing the trial for serious offences, and hence the situation is different.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Niraj Srivastava S/O Late M.P. ... vs Union Of India Through on 15 January, 2014

14. We are compelled to take a note of the fact that much stress has been laid in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the Prime Minister being the Disciplinary Authority had approved initiation of departmental enquiry against the applicant as early as 04.04.2013 well before the date of the meeting of the DPC on 25.06.2013 and the sealed cover procedure adopted by the DPC in respect of the applicant was correct. It appears that in the verification clause of the counter affidavit it has not been stated as to whether the averments made in para nos. 4.9 and 4.13 are based on record, instead a vague statement has been made saying the same is true and correct to the best of deponents knowledge. On a close look, the averment to the afore effect is falsified by the Memorandum dated 25.11.2013 rejecting the representation dated 19.09.2013 submitted by the applicant wherein it has been clearly mentioned in para no.3 It is also noted that Prime Minister, as Disciplinary Authority has approved the charge sheet on 07.10.2013 and the charge sheet has also been served upon Shri Niraj Srivastava on 18.10.2013. When this was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the respondents, he materially admitted on behalf of the respondents that on the date the DPC met and/or the junior officers were promoted and placed the recommendation qua the applicant in sealed cover, none of the three mandatory conditions mentioned in para 2 of OM dated 14.09.1992 were getting satisfied. Therefore, the act of the respondents in placing the case of the applicant in sealed cover is repugnant to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court Union of India and Others versus K.V. Jankiraman (supra) and also contravenes the Office Memoranda dated 14.09.1992 and 02.11.2002. The submissions of the respondents that the case relates to integrity have also been taken care of and do not sustain.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shri Deepak Malik vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi on 10 April, 2015

16. Learned counsel for the respondent made an endeavour to contend that in the light of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. K. V. Janakiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109 : (1991 AIR SCW 2276 : AIR 1991 SC 2010 : 1991 Lab IC 2045) the Sealed Cover Procedure can be resorted to only after Charge Memo is received or a charge-sheet is filed and that unless such an event had happened at the relevant time the Government employee cannot be denied of his promotion, if he is otherwise entitled to it. Learned counsel also submitted that Janakiraman was since followed in Union of India v. Dr. Sudha Salhan, (1998) 3 SCC 394 : (1998 AIR SCW 884 : AIR 1998 SC 1094 : 1998 Lab IC 957); Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999) 5 SCC 762 : (1999 AIR SCW 2529 : AIR 1999 SC 2407 : 1999 Lab IC 2819). The clauses of second paragraph of the Sealed Cover Procedure considered in Janakiraman were not those involved in the present case and hence that decision is of no avail to the respondent. In the other two decisions the facts warranted application of the ratio contained in Janakiraman. The added factor in these two cases was that the public servant concerned had been exonerated of the charges framed by the criminal Courts. In the present case the respondent is still facing the trial for serious offences, and hence the situation is different.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Deepak Malik vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi on 10 April, 2015

16. Learned counsel for the respondent made an endeavour to contend that in the light of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. K. V. Janakiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109 : (1991 AIR SCW 2276 : AIR 1991 SC 2010 : 1991 Lab IC 2045) the Sealed Cover Procedure can be resorted to only after Charge Memo is received or a charge-sheet is filed and that unless such an event had happened at the relevant time the Government employee cannot be denied of his promotion, if he is otherwise entitled to it. Learned counsel also submitted that Janakiraman was since followed in Union of India v. Dr. Sudha Salhan, (1998) 3 SCC 394 : (1998 AIR SCW 884 : AIR 1998 SC 1094 : 1998 Lab IC 957); Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999) 5 SCC 762 : (1999 AIR SCW 2529 : AIR 1999 SC 2407 : 1999 Lab IC 2819). The clauses of second paragraph of the Sealed Cover Procedure considered in Janakiraman were not those involved in the present case and hence that decision is of no avail to the respondent. In the other two decisions the facts warranted application of the ratio contained in Janakiraman. The added factor in these two cases was that the public servant concerned had been exonerated of the charges framed by the criminal Courts. In the present case the respondent is still facing the trial for serious offences, and hence the situation is different.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank vs Arun Kumar Sinha on 22 December, 2022

The writ-petitioner qualified in the said examination, but in the meanwhile, a departmental proceeding was initiated regarding some irregularity committed in course of discharge of his duties. The matter was sent before the Departmental Promotion Committee and the said committee has kept the case of the writ-petitioner in sealed cover and that decision has been taken, according to our view, on the basis of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. K.V. Jankiraman (supra).
Jharkhand High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Raj Karan Yadav vs High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad ... on 14 August, 2018

In addition thereto, reliance has been placed on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar : 2013 (4) SCC 161 to contend that in absence of suspension of the incumbent or service of charge-sheet upon him or pendency of any judicial enquiry against him, there should be no impediment in promoting the incumbent in view of the law laid down in Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman's case (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Surendra Bahadur Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi, Govt. ... on 26 April, 2016

10. Now, we take note of the fact that the principal reliance of the applicant is on the decision of Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in case of Chacko Eapen & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors. (supra) where we find that there is nothing on record from the side of the applicant to show what is the status of the case. Since the applicant is an accused in the case and privy to the documents in the court, it was for the applicant to have provided the status of the case. We also find that neither the applicant nor the respondents have filed any affidavit indicating the status of the decision. However, in respect to para 4.13 of the OA, the averments have been denied by the respondents on the ground that these paras are matter of record and anything to the contrary is wrong.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of U.P.Thru ... vs Kamlesh Chandra on 23 May, 2023

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others v. Dr. Sudha Salhan (Smt.) 1998 (3) SCC 394 while agreeing to the decision of Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman 1991 (4) SCC 109 held that if on the date on which the name of the person is considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the higher post, such person is neither under suspension nor has any departmental proceedings been initiated against him, his name, if he is found meritorious and suitable, has to be brought on the select list and the sealed cover procedure cannot be adopted. The recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee can be placed in a sealed cover only if on the date of consideration of name for promotion, the departmental proceedings had been initiated or were pending or on its conclusion, final order had not been passed by the appropriate authority.
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - D K Upadhyaya - Full Document

K.Karthikeyan vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 21 November, 2014

Even though in the said decision, this Court has distinguished the decision in Jankiraman case (supra) and held that the same is not applicable to its case, in the light of the conditions mentioned in para 2 as well as para 7 of the office memorandum dated 14.09.1992 and of the categorical finding that none of the conditions mentioned therein has been fulfilled, we are of the view that the decision in R.S. Sharma case (supra) is not helpful to the case of the appellant. 
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - M M Sundresh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next