Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (1.63 seconds)
Documents citing Ranjeet Singh @ Karare vs State Of Haryana on 6 July, 2010

Dr.M.Ramula vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 June, 2013

18.The petitioner, having waited for four years and found that the respondents kept pending the disciplinary action and passing over the name of the petitioner for inclusion of panel of promotion, came to this Court challenging the correctness of the charge memo dated 15.7.2001 issued by the third respondent. When the third respondent issued a charge memo way back on 15.7.2001 and thereafter, they appointed an enquiry officer on 22.11.2002, this Court fails to understand why the respondents have not completed the enquiry and furnished a copy of the enquiry report till now. When the respondents denied the further promotional avenues of the petitioner to the higher post for nine years from the date of issuance of charge memo dated 15.7.2001, as rightly relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner the decision of the Apex court in P.V.MAHADEVAN VS. MD.T.N.HOUSING BOARD (2005 (6) SCC 636), holding that "the protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees", and another decision of the Apex Court in RANJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (2008 (3) CTC 781), following the earlier view that the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment, this Court, having seen that the petitioner was denied promotion for about 13 years and considering the mental agony and suffering sustained by the petitioner due to the protracted enquiry and since that itself is much more than the punishment, is inclined to interfere with the charge memo dated 15.7.2001 issued by the third respondent by applying the above said two decisions laid down by the Apex Court, for, till now, the respondents have not passed any final order although 13 years had gone by now.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - T Raja - Full Document

)The Agricultural Production ... vs M.Sampath on 10 June, 2015

(q) In Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others reported in 2008 (3) CTC 781, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the correctness of a judgment made in a second appeal, dismissing the plea that there was no substantial question of law in interfering with the judgment and decree made by the District Court, which reversed a decree passed in a suit for declaration, declaring a show cause notice issued after a delay of 7 years after concluding the departmental enquiry, as illegal. There was also a delay of 9 years in initiating disciplinary proceedings. In the above reported case, for an allegation of the year 1974, a charge memo was issued in 1983, after 9 years. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 01.01.1985. After a delay of nearly 7 years, the department issued a show cause notice with a copy of the report, proposing to impose a penalty. After submission of the explanation, the Government servant preferred a suit to declare a show cause notice proposing to impose a punishment as invalid. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the action of the employer imposing punishment as illegal. The State preferred an appeal to the District Court. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the Government servant filed a second appeal to the High Court. The decision made by the District Court was confirmed. Testing the correctness of the judgment and decree and following the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.N.Radhakrishnan reported in AIR 1998 SCC 1833 : 1998 (4) SCC 154 and P.V.Mahadevan V.Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 9 has held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The Joint Director Of School Education vs B.Ravindran on 22 April, 2016

(xvii)In Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others reported in 2008 (3) CTC 781, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the correctness of a judgment made in a second appeal, dismissing the plea that there was no substantial question of law in interfering with the judgment and decree made by the District Court, which reversed a decree passed in a suit for declaration, declaring a show cause notice issued after a delay of 7 years after concluding the departmental enquiry, as illegal. There was also a delay of 9 years in initiating disciplinary proceedings. In the above reported case, for an allegation of the year 1974, a charge memo was issued in 1983, after 9 years. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 01.01.1985. After a delay of nearly 7 years, the department issued a show cause notice with a copy of the report, proposing to impose a penalty. After submission of the explanation, the Government servant preferred a suit to declare a show cause notice proposing to impose a punishment as invalid. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the action of the employer imposing punishment as illegal. The State preferred an appeal to the District Court. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the Government servant filed a second appeal to the High Court. The decision made by the District Court was confirmed. Testing the correctness of the judgment and decree and following the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.N.Radhakrishnan reported in AIR 1998 SCC 1833 : 1998 (4) SCC 154 and P.V.Mahadevan V.Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 9 has held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next