Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.17 seconds)
Documents citing Lakhminder Singh Brar vs Uoi & Ors. on 16 September, 2010

C Balan vs Post Kerala Circle on 18 August, 2022

In addition to the above, the learned SCGSC during oral submissions drew attention to the judgment dated 16.9.2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Lakhminder Singh Brar v. Union of India & Ors., in WP© No. 13191/2009 where the Hon'ble High Court had specifically gone into the matter whether the respondents were right in granting only the provisional pension to the petitioner instead of regular pension on account of the pendency of Criminal Appeal against his acquittal. The Hon'ble High Court noted that the short point before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the OA No. 1991/2007 was "whether the respondents were right in granting only the provisional pension to the petitioner instead of regular pension on account of the pendency of Criminal Appeal against his acquittal". The Tribunal had answered this question against the petitioner and that was why the petitioner was before this Court. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ranjit Dadlani Age About 57 Years vs Central Public Works Department on 23 September, 2014

5. In the present case, the object sought to be achieved by notification dated 17.01.2014 is that an employee who is vulnerable to such penalty which may have effect of forfeiture of his past service, should not be allowed to get away with the benefit of service and consequently the terminal benefits. The interpretation of the expression judicial proceedings with reference to one set of rules cannot be applied while interpreting the same as used in another set of rules. Our such view is fortified by the judgment of Honble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No.13191/2009 decided on 16.09.2010 ( Lakhminder Singh Brar Vs. UOI and Ors ). In the said case, while interpreting the expression of judicial proceedings as used in Rule 69(1) (C) of CCS (Pension) Rules, Honble High Court categorically viewed that the pendency of criminal appeal against the order of acquittal of the petitioner would be continuation of judicial proceedings pending against the Government servant within the contemplation of Rule 9 of Pension Rules and it cannot be said that the pendency of the criminal appeal against the order of acquittal of the petitioner would not amount to judicial proceedings under Rule 69 read with Rule 9 of the Pension Rules. For easy reference, relevant excerpt of the judgment of Honble Delhi High Court is reproduced hereinbelow:-.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kanwar Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 16 November, 2022

5. On perusal of the aforesaid decision in Lakhminder Singh Brar (supra), the facts are entirely distinguishable so far as the present case is concerned, wherein in the said case the petitioner therein superannuated from service on 30.09.2007. It is submitted that an FIR was lodged against him qua possession and ownership of some land by the Economic Offences Wing of Delhi and was arrested. Thereafter, he was released on bail on 09.04.2004 and resumed his duties but was placed under suspension. He faced full-fledged trial and was ultimately acquitted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The respondent issued 8 OA No. 1583/2019 order dated 05.04.2006 for continuation of his suspension on the ground that Criminal Misc. Appeal was preferred against the order of acquittal. Applicant therein assailed the aforesaid order before this Tribunal which was allowed and respondent therein had stated that they were not contemplating any departmental enquiry after his acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, he was reinstated in service and no departmental proceedings were initiated against him but his period of suspension was not regularized.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1