Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 389 (2.23 seconds)
Documents citing Kulwant Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab on 13 September, 1990

State Of Punjab vs Jagrup Singh on 23 April, 2013

"8. The short question that would arise for consideration is whether the procedure adopted by the respondents to impose this penalty without holding an enquiry is legal and property. The answer to this question would depend upon the fact whether the penalty imposed is major or minor penalty. If the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is major penalty, then respondents were under legal obligation to hold the enquiry before imposing this punishment. The RSA No.1100 of 1990 (O&M) 4 issue, in my view, is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1991 (2) SCT 30 (SC) 9, has held that stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect falls within the meaning of 5 (v) of the Punishment and Appeals Rules and would amount to major penalty and, thus, regular enquiry would be a must to impose this penalty. Without enquiry, no punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, as such, could be ordered. Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules clearly envisages the procedure to conduct an enquiry into the misconduct before ordering stoppage of increment with cumulative effect."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A N Jindal - Full Document

B.Pentaiah Nizamabad vs The A.P.S.R.T.C., Its Depot Manager, ... on 31 December, 2021

The principles laid down by the Apex Court governing the condonation of delay will certainly and equally have application even in cases where challenge is made to an order imposing the punishment contrary to the Regulations or the ratio in Kulwant Singh Gill's case (supra), where the employee had slept over the matter and had not chosen to challenge it within a reasonable period of time. It may also be noticed that in service matters, the Courts have applied the rule of delay with greater rigor.
Telangana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P M Devi - Full Document

K.Sathaiah,Karimnagar Dist. vs M.D.,Apsrtc,Hyd And 2 on 16 August, 2018

This court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that though the respondents have imposed a punishment on 13.12.1993, the petitioner was tried in a criminal court on the very same set of facts in CC.No.802/1993 and the competent criminal court has acquitted the petitioner, vide its judgment, dated 24.09.1997, and there afterwards, the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 01.11.1997, but no orders have been passed so far on the appeal, hence, there is no delay, as contended by the learned standing counsel for the respondents. Therefore, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab (1 supra), this writ petition is liable to be allowed.
Telangana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A K Shavili - Full Document

M. Shankar, Kmnr Dist. vs The D.M., Apsrtc, Godavarikhani Dept., ... on 4 October, 2018

Then the order would be without jurisdiction or authority of law, and it would be per se void. Considering from this angle we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order would come within the meaning of Rule 5(v) of the Rules; it is a major penalty and imposition of the impugned penalty without enquiry is per se illegal." This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that though the 5 AKS,J W.P.No.21453/2010 respondent imposed punishment on 19.1.1993, the petitioner availed the remedy of appeal and thereafter, the petitioner has preferred I.D. in the year 2005 and after dismissal of I.D. in the year 2007, the petitioner approached this Court. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab (1 supra), this writ petition is liable to be allowed.
Telangana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A K Shavili - Full Document

M. Rajarathinam vs The State Bank Of India on 18 August, 2007

6.5. But, we make it clear that even in the absence of observation that the appellant/delinquent would not draw next increment on 01.11.1995 and would be eligible to draw next increment on 01.11.1996 and thereafter he would draw his future annual increments on the anniversary dates of his increment, the order of the disciplinary and appellate authority to the effect that withholding of one increment of pay with cumulative effect would not be sustainable in law, as the order of punishment of withholding of one increment of pay with cumulative effect amounts to a major punishment, which cannot be imposed without affording a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent, holding an enquiry, rendering a finding and issuing a second show cause notice, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, reported in 1990 Factories Labour Reports 635.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Harish S/O Gajanan Agrawal vs Bank Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 31 August, 2005

The Apex Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab (cited supra) was considering the similar provisions of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, wherein Clause (iv) of Rule 5 provided the punishment of withholding of increment of pay and this punishment was included in the category of minor penalty. Whereas, reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the Government employee will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay was the punishment provided in Clause (v) of Rule 5 and was included in the category of the major penalties. The contention was advanced before the Apex Court in the said case by the Learned Counsel for the State that withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is only a minor penalty and it does not amount to reduction to a lower stage in the time scale. However, the Apex Court rejected this contention and in para 3 of its judgment observed thus :
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - D D Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next