Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing Uoi And Ors. vs Swati S. Patil. on 1 April, 2013

Dr I Vijayakumar vs M/O Finance on 2 November, 2021

11 0A 448/2020 and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained • prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its emplcyee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged offi cer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the Court is to balance these two diverse considerations." vi. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India & others Vs. Swathi Patil in Civil Appeal No. 3881 of2007 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 17417 6f2006) has held as under:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs S.K. Pal Judgement Given By: Hon'Ble ... on 10 September, 2013

"3. Under Rule 10 of CAT (Procedure) Rules 1987 a person is entitiled to plural remedies unless they Union of India & Ors Vs. S.K.Pal are consequential to each other. The relief of promotion has nothing to do with the claim regarding gratuity. Hence, in view of Rule 10 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, we are of the considered view that the second relief is not maintainable. Moreover, we note that the appalicant is placing reliance on Annexure-A3 order dated 6.1.1998 whereby while making promotion of certain officials, competent authority observed that result of the applicant is kept in abeyance due to contemplated proceedings against him. The applicant contended that in departmental proceedings initiated against him, a penalty of reversion has been imposed vide order dated 27.10.1998 to the lower time scale by two scales and the basic to be fixed at the highest grade of the scale of reversion for two years with non-cumulative effect. It is not the case of the applicant that the said penalty has either been challenged before this Court of law or withdrawn by the respondents themselves. In other words the said penalty attained its finality. The learned counsel further contends that despite various representations made on the subject no action has been taken by the respondents to grant such benefits of promotion. Hence, we are of the clear view and we have no hesitation to conclude that this relief is totally misconceived and the claim on this aspect is not maintainable."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jawahar Singh vs Union Of India Through on 1 July, 2015

It is to be noted that the issue in question stands already covered and discussed in various decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India & Anr. Versus Ashok Kacker [1995 Supp (1) SCC 180]; Union of India versus Upender Singh [JT 1994 (1) SC 658]; Union of India versus Kuni Setty Satyanarayana [2007 (1) SCT 452]; State of Punjab & Others versus Ajit Singh [1997 (11) SCC 368]; DIG of Police versus K. Swaminathan [1996 (11) SCC 498]; and Union of India and Others versus Swathi S. Patil [Civil Appeal No.3881 of 207 (arising out of SLP(C) No.17417 of 206).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

S.R. Verma vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 11 December, 2013

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant Shri M.K. Bhardwaj and the learned counsel for the Respondents Shri U.N. Singh. It is seen that after the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in V.S. Aroras case (supra), another Division Bench of the High Court has considered the same issue in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Swati S. Patil in W.P. ( C) No.4018/2011 decided on 01.04.2013 wherein the Honble Division Bench has held as follows:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next