Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.32 seconds)

M.Asokan (Died) vs The Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 1 March, 2024

The very same ground has been specifically raised in this appeal before this Court wherein it is stated that the delay of more than 10 years in initiating the disciplinary proceedings by issuance of charge memo would render the departmental proceedings vitiated and that in the absence of any explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating such proceedings of issuance of charge memo would justify the prayer for quashing the proceedings as made in the writ petition.'' https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 16 of 20 W.P.No.29014 of 2010 4.7.The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.34197 of 2016 in the case of B.Maximus Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & ors is extracted herein under, “10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in numerous decisions have held that inordinate delay in initiation or completion of disciplinary proceedings by itself would cause grave prejudice to the rights of the government employees and interfered with disciplinary proceedings on that ground alone. In this case, to say that there was inordinate delay in completion of the departmental action is an understatement. .”

C.Rajagopal vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 13 July, 2022

Insofar as the point of delay is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a recent decision of this Court in W.P.No.34197 of 2016 in the matter of B.Maximus Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Secretary to Government, Cooperation Department, Chennai and others. The learned Judge in the said order having considered a plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point of delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, allowed the said writ petition which reads thus:
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R S Kumar - Full Document

C.Rajagopal vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 13 July, 2022

Insofar as the point of delay is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a recent decision of this Court in W.P.No.34197 of 2016 in the matter of B.Maximus Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Secretary to Government, Cooperation Department, Chennai and others. The learned Judge in the said order having considered a plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point of delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, allowed the said writ petition which reads thus:
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R S Kumar - Full Document

C.Rajagopal vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 13 July, 2022

Insofar as the point of delay is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a recent decision of this Court in W.P.No.34197 of 2016 in the matter of B.Maximus Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Secretary to Government, Cooperation Department, Chennai and others. The learned Judge in the said order having considered a plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point of delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, allowed the said writ petition which reads thus:
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R S Kumar - Full Document

M.Sundaramoorthy vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 23 April, 2025

26. The above preposition of law has been followed in several Page No.15 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 04:57:43 pm ) W.P.No.17912 of 2018 judgments of this Court and in the case of B.Maximus Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (W.P.No.34197 of 2016 dated 12.04.2022), a reference has been made to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and held that the inordinate and unexplained delay can alone be the reason to set aside the penalty.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.Krishna Thejas vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 April, 2025

11. Attention of this Court was drawn to the order of this Court held in the case of B.Maximus Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (W.P.No.34197 of 2016 dated 12.04.2022). The above order has been passed after discussing various judgments of the Apex Court on the point that the Court can interfere in the disciplinary action on the ground of delay. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

T.Rajendran vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 8 September, 2022

6. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that issuance of charge memo on the verge of the petitioner’s retirement amounts to clear infringement of the writ petitioner's rights. My attention is drawn to the order dated 12.04.2022 made in W.P(MD)No.34197 of 2016 (B.Maximus Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others) which holds as follows:
1