Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 52 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By ... vs R. Karuppiah, Inspector Of Police ... on 1 April, 2005

C. Mathesu vs The Secretary To Government on 26 April, 2013

30. Conclusion In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the decision to the contrary taken in Writ Appeal (MD) No.669 of 2011 (The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli, District, Tiruchirappalli vs. N. Mohanraj) dated 22.7.2011, as also in The State of Tamil Nadu vs. R. Karuppiah, 2005 (3) C.T.C. 4 and in K. Durairajan vs. Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, 2010 (4) C.T.C. 504, in our humble opinion, do not lay down the correct law.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

P.S.Kasthuri vs The Commissioner on 5 November, 2008

66. In view of the settled proposition of law on the aspect of inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating or conducting disciplinary proceedings, on the part of the employer, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the view that initiating fresh proceeding or continuing the departmental action against the petitioner after retirement, at this length of time, would cause serious prejudice, particularly when the relationship of master and servant is snapped. Therefore, on the facts of this case, having regard to the decision taken at the fag end of his career to conduct the departmental enquiry on the charges, said to have been pending from 1976, the only course of action that was available to the respondents was to follow the mandatory procedure contemplated under FR 56(1)(c), i.e., suspension of the Government servant or the employee of the local body and retain him from service for the purpose of holding an enquiry into the charges said to have been pending. The impugned order is liable to be struck down on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, as held in Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Director, O.S.F.C. Reported in 1999(3) SCC 666, State of Tamil Nadu v. R.Karupiah reported in 2005 (3) CTC 4, P.Muthusamy v. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd., reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 504 and N.Kunnai Gowder v. the Coimbatore District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd., reported in 2007 (5) CTC 491, and for inordinate and unexplained delay in concluding the enquiry. Further, in the light of the decisions of this Court, the authorities have no jurisdiction to order for recovery of time barred arrears of property tax, professional tax and lease amount from the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Kootha Pillai vs The Commissioner on 5 November, 2008

69. In view of the settled proposition of law on the aspect of inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating or conducting disciplinary proceedings, on the part of the employer, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the view that initiating fresh proceeding or continuing the departmental action against the petitioner after retirement, at this length of time, would cause serious prejudice, particularly when the relationship of master and servant is snapped. Therefore, on the facts of this case, the only course of action that was available to the respondents was to follow the mandatory procedure contemplated under FR 56(1)(c), i.e., suspension of the Government servant or the employee of the local body and retain him from service for the purpose of holding an enquiry into the charges said to have been pending. The impugned order is liable to be struck down on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, as held in Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Director, O.S.F.C. Reported in 1999(3) SCC 666, State of Tamil Nadu v. R.Karupiah reported in 2005 (3) CTC 4, P.Muthusamy v. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd., reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 504 and N.Kunnai Gowder v. the Coimbatore District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd., reported in 2007 (5) CTC 491, and for inordinate and unexplained delay in concluding the enquiry. Further, in the light of the decisions of this Court, the authorities have no jurisdiction to order for recovery of time barred arrears of property tax, professional tax and lease amount from the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - S Manikumar - Full Document

M.Sekar vs The Registrar General on 17 February, 2015

'7. In view of the absence of such a provision in the above said regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30.06.1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement.' 7.3. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. R.Karuppiah, (2005) 2 MLJ 555, also held as under:
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M.K.Krishnan vs The Director Of Veterinary Services on 16 April, 2018

In view of the admitted factual position that there is no specific enabling provision in the TANCEM Service Rules and of the legal position as referred to above, we hold that the order of the first respondent, reserving the right to continue the disciplinary proceedings after superannuation, is illegal and without jurisdiction. We also take note of the claim made in W.P. No.18953 of 2003 that though the Charge Memo was issued on 15.5.2001 and reply containing explanation therefor was sent on 30.06.2001, there was acute sluggishness on the part of the authority, for, the notice of enquiry was issued only on 27.06.2003, mentioning the enquiry date as 30.06.2003, the date on which the petitioner attained superannuation as per Rules.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - M Dhandapani - Full Document

R.Ramalingam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 28 January, 2008

13. The other Judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is State of Tamil Nadu V. R.Karuppiah, Inspector of Police (2005 (3) CTC 4). In the said case, the petitioner therein was allowed to retire from service on 31.05.1990 and the departmental proceedings were initiated after two months from the date of retirement of the first respondent. Therefore, the Honourable Division Bench referring to Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules held that Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rule alone is applicable since even while he was in service, he was placed under suspension. The relevant conclusions arrived at by the Division Bench in Paragraph Nos. 19 and 20 are as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Nagamuthu - Full Document

C.Murugesan vs Chief Engineer (General) on 2 November, 2010

In fact, the Division Bench presided over by Justice P.Sathasivam, (as His Lordship then was) in the case of STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. R.KARUPPIAH ((2005) 2 MLJ 342) has held that in the absence of an order passed under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules, invoking the provisions of Rule 9 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules is not permissible thereby holding that recovery from the employee is not permissible when the employee is allowed to retire from service.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

P.Muthusamy vs Tamilnadu Cements on 31 August, 2006

In view of the admitted factual position that there is no specific enabling provision in the TANCEM Service Rules and of the legal position as referred to above, we hold that the order of the first respondent, reserving the right to continue the disciplinary proceedings after superannuation, is illegal and without jurisdiction. We also take note of the claim made in W.P. No.18953 of 2003 that though the Charge Memo was issued on 15.5.2001 and reply containing explanation therefor was sent on 30.06.2001, there was acute sluggishness on the part of the authority, for, the notice of enquiry was issued only on 27.06.2003, mentioning the enquiry date as 30.06.2003, the date on which the petitioner attained superannuation as per Rules.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 20 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next