Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing Government Of A.P. Rep. By Its Secretary ... vs M.A. Majeed And Anr. on 7 October, 2005

F.S.Chauhan vs Uoi & Ors. on 11 December, 2018

In fact, it is not the case of the petitioner (except stating that the 1993 Rules, are false, fabricated, unnotified) that no such amendments have been carried out to the Rules by the Board. The amendments, through Annexures- W.P.(C) No. 4673/2002 Page 60 of 94 I and II being in place, the plea of Mr. Chauhan is unsustainable. That apart, as far as the plea of Mr. Chauhan that the title of Annexure-II is inconsistent with its content is concerned, the submission apart from being vague is also without any merit, as the Annexure-II is not applicable to the proceedings against the petitioner, as the same have not arisen out of vigilance investigations. In the case of the petitioner, it was Annexure-I, which was applicable and also followed. Further, the title broadly denotes applicability of Annexure-II to disciplinary matters arising out of vigilance investigations against employees in the grade of Rs.1,000 - 1900 and above. The contents further classify Disciplinary / Appellate and Reviewing Authority on the basis of pay-scales drawn by the employees. In other words, the Authorities vary for the employees drawing different pay-scales, over and above the pay- scale of Rs.1000-1900. Mr. Chauhan in support of his submission had relied upon the judgment in the case of Government of A.P. & Ors v. M.A. Majeed & anr (supra) that the charge sheet issued by the incompetent authority would be wholly without jurisdiction. In view of my conclusion above, this judgment has no applicability.
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Rajeev Agarwal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 20 August, 2019

29. Reliance is also placed on Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. M.A. Majeed & Anr.: 2006 (2) AIR Kar R 443 and submitted that a statutory authority is required to do something in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner only. The state and other authorities, while acting under the statute, are the creatures of the statue and they must act within the four corners of the statute.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S K Kait - Full Document

Rama Shankar Mishra S/O Shri Raj Mangal ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through ... on 22 September, 2006

In a Full Bench decision of the A.P. High Court in M.A. Majeed's case (supra), the High Court has dealt with a similar provision 20 (3) & (4) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1991, which would have implication in the present application as in the DP&AR letter dated 25.11.1981, an analogous provision, i.e., Rule 14 (5) (a) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, had been compared with Rule 8 (6) (a) of the Rules. In the aforesaid decision, what has been held is that it is mandated upon the disciplinary authority to apply its mind to the written statement of defence and thereafter to appoint the inquiry officer. Accordingly, the appointment of inquiry officer, by no stretch, logic or rationale, has to be stereotype duty to be discharged. It is rather preceded by a valid, just and equitable consideration to the contentions raised by the concerned employee in his written statement of defence. The following observations have been made by the High Court of A.P.:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ajit Kumar Singh vs Union Of India on 20 April, 2010

(a) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority may itself inquire into such of the articles of charge as are not admitted, or, if it considers if necessary to do so, appoint under sub-rule (2), an inquiring authority for the purpose, and where all the articles of charge have been admitted by the Government Servant in his written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority shall record its findings on each charge after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the manner laid down in Rule 15.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narinder Kumar Jain vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 26 August, 2010

9. Learned senior counsel has relied upon OM issued under A.I.S. Rules on 16.8.1978 and the decision of the Full Bench of the A.P. High Court in Govt. of A.P. v. M.A. Majeed and Anr., 2006 (2) ATJ 581. In the above backdrop, the learned counsel would contend that upto 15.09.2007 applicant was not supposed to disclose his defence despite an opportunity given in 2002 to file his written statement. Thereupon, on resumption of enquiry when the applicant was not afforded an opportunity by an express communication to submit statement of defence and appointment of Inquiry Officer (IO) on 17.03.2008 without awaiting for the written statement of defence of applicant, despite applicant has represented, is in violation of Rule 8 (5) & (6) of the A.I.S. Rules as well as the decision of in Abdul Majeeds case (supra), which vitiates the enquiry.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs B.V.Gopinath on 5 September, 2013

36. It was also submitted that the charge memo drawn by an officer other than the specified authority was wholly without jurisdiction and hence, vitiated the whole disciplinary enquiry. Reliance was placed on Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M.A. Majeed & Anr.[17] It was also submitted that where a statutory authority is required do something in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner only. The State and other authorities, while acting under the statute, are the creatures of the statue and they must act with in the four corners of the statute.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 278 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

P. Dhanraj vs 1 Telangana on 24 November, 2023

"36. It was also submitted that the charge memo drawn by an officer other than the specified authority was wholly without jurisdiction and hence, vitiated the whole disciplinary enquiry. Reliance was placed on Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M.A. Majeed & Anr., (2006) 1 ALD 823: (2006) 1 ALT 661. It was also submitted that where a statutory authority is required do something in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner only. The State and other authorities, while acting under the statue, are the creatures of the statute and they must act with in the four corners of the statue.
Telangana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next