Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing A. Vema Reddy vs Controller General Of Defence ... on 20 July, 2001

S.V. Narayana And Ors. vs The Kolar Gramin Bank, Rep. By Its ... on 30 June, 2003

cum-merit or seniority-cum-suitability. But, seniority would have only a marginal role to play where the post has to be filled by way of selections Speaking for a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, one of us (S.R. NAYAK, J) A. VEMA REDDY v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE; ACCOUNTS, NEW DELHI AND ORS. (2001) 5 ALD 131 (DB) observed:
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - K Ramanna - Full Document

P.K. Jain vs Union Of India Through on 28 July, 2008

27. A Division Bench of the High Court speaking through Honble Chief Justice Shri S.B. Sinha in A.Verma Reddy v. Controller General of Defence Accounts, New Delhi and others, 2002 (1) ATJ 342 ruled that when promotion is based like in the instant case when fitness is established on seniority a minor penalty of censure cannot affect the promotion. Though minor penalty of censure when inflicted in a disciplinary proceedings for a major penalty and specially when sealed cover is resorted to, may be an impediment because the Government servant has not been exonerated on merits, as ruled by the Apex Court in Collector of Thanjavur Distt.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B.Maddileti, vs The District Collector Sw on 20 January, 2022

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment of 'Censure' originally passed on 02.07.2020 was in force and would have ended by 02.07.2021. However, the 1st respondent imposed punishment of 'Censure' by orders dated 19.06.2021 on the same issue and thereby the petitioner is seriously prejudiced. He submits that the earlier order of 'Censure' was cancelled on the premise that the matter was not routed through the Government. Now, a fresh order has been passed vide impugned proceedings dated 19.06.2021 virtually extending the period of currency of the punishment by one year, though it would have ended by 02.07.2021. While stating that the currency of censure would be for a period of one year, which bars a Government servant for promotion, for one year, in view of G.O.Ms.No.342 dated 04.08.1997, he contends that 4 NJS,J W.P.No.20965 of 2021 the said orders are only Executive instructions and have no statutory force. He submits that there is no prohibition for considering the case of petitioner as per the Statutory Rules in vogue, but the petitioner is denied promotion while his juniors are marching ahead. He further submits that as held by a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in A. Vema Reddy v. Controller General of Defence Accounts1, the punishment of 'Censure' cannot have the effect of automatically postponing the employee's promotion. Making the above said submissions, he urges for allowing the Writ Petition as prayed for.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - N Jayasurya - Full Document

Doddamahadevaiah vs New Mangalore Port Trust, By Its ... on 3 April, 2003

8. It is trite that since the promotional post of Deputy Traffic Manager in terms of Recruitment Regulations has to be filled up by the method known as 'promotion by Selection' the process necessarily involves assessment of relative merits of candidates who come under zone of consideration. It is true that seniority in feeder post is one of the important factors for making promotions when the recruiting agency has to adopt the method of seniority - cum-merit or seniority -cum-suitability. But, seniority would have only a marginal role to play where the post has to be filled by way of selection. Speaking for a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, one of us (S.R.Nayak, J) A. VEMA REDDY v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS, NEW DELHI AND ORS., (2001) 5 ALD 131(DB) observed:-
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - K Ramanna - Full Document

(O&M;) Harbans Singh vs J.C. Sabharwal And Anr on 19 September, 2016

In this regard he has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Shri Vidya Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995(3) S.C.T. 50 and Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(1) SLR 411, judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Chimanrao Morbaji Patil v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2012(4) S.C.T. 60 and a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the Case of A. Vema Reddy v. Controller General of Defence 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 26-09-2016 00:07:01 ::: COCP No.2970 of 2012 (O&M) -7- Accounts, New Delhi, 2002(2) S.C.T. 147.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R K Jain - Full Document

Allan Bala Kishore, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 31 March, 2021

Case of the petitioner is that, he is working as Deputy Tahsildar and Tahsildar (FAC), Tangutur; a charge memo was issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner alleging that he has changed the survey number without the order from the higher authority; petitioner submitted his written explanation; upon considering the same, the 3rd respondent has passed punishment order 'CENSURE' vide proceedings dated 13.03.2021; now the department is preparing DPC for the panel year 2016-2017, but the name of the petitioner has not been considered in view of the punishment of censure awarded on the petitioner; as held by the Division Bench of this Court in A Vema Reddy's case (supra), the punishment of 'censure' imposed is not a valid ground for overlooking the seniority of the candidate in the matter of promotion; he made a representation to the respondents on 22.03.2021 to consider his name for DPC for the panel year 2016-2017, but the same is not considered. Hence, the writ petition.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - K V Lakshmi - Full Document

Unknown vs High Court Of Andhra Pradesh At ... on 6 April, 2026

Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly placed his reliance on the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in A.Vema Reddy v. Controller General of Defence Accounts, New Delhi (2001 (5) ALD 131 (DB)) and also the orders passed by a Coordinate of this Court in W.P.No.19390 of 2020, wherein the Court has categorically held that the censure is a minor punishment something like a warning to be careful in future and in that a lenient view was (contd..) taken to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to improve his behaviour and to be careful in his work in future.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next