Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing K.Deivendran vs The District Collector on 29 February, 2012

R.Balakrishnan vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By Its on 28 November, 2012

Insofar as the contention with regard to the delay in proceeding against the petitioner departmentally, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on this Court judgment in K.Deivendran v. District Collector reported in (2012) 4 MLJ 576 to substantiate his contention that unexplained delay vitiates the entire proceedings. In the said case, the charge memo came to be issued after a period of 9 years and this Court noted that there was no justifiable reason or explanation given by the respondents/department, therein and thus found that the delay in issuing the charge memo after the period of 9 years vitiates the entire proceedings. The case on hand is still worse. When the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that the charge memo was issued after a period of 9 years, admittedly, in this case, even till today, no charge memo has been filed against the petitioner even after a period of nearly 15 years from the time of alleged delinquency and 10 years from the date of filing the F.I.R. and seven years from the date of suspension. On the other hand, it is the categorical stand of the respondents that they are awaiting the verdict of the criminal Court. Thus, in effect, there is no departmental proceedings initiated at all even though the petitioner was placed under suspension as early as on 25.01.2005. Consequently, the delay on the part of the respondents certainly causes great prejudice to the petitioner's right to have his defended effectively.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - K R Baabu - Full Document

V.Durairaj vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 16 July, 2018

9.Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions made, especially the fact that the petitioner is under suspension for a long period of 11 years, though for his involvement in a case of bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act and it is not known when the aforesaid case is going to be concluded, this Court is of the view that the respondents ought to have review his order of suspension and revoke the same especially in view of the law laid down in the case of [Ajay Kumar Chowdary v. Union of India], 2015 (7) SCC 291 as well as the Division Bench of this Court in the case of [K.Devendran V. District Collector and Another] cited supra. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondents to revoke the order of suspension within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and post the petitioner in the place as they think fit and proper in the facts situation.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Pujahari - Full Document

R.Rajendran vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 12 June, 2014

In support of his submission with regard to the delay and latches aspect is concerned, he relied on a decision of this Court reported in 2012(4) MLJ 576 (K.Deivendran vs. The District Collector, Dindigul District), which has been followed by another learned single Judge of this Court in a recent decision made in W.P(MD)No.14149 of 2013 dated 05.06.2014 (T.Ravindran vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu).
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - K R Baabu - Full Document

V.Subramanian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 24 August, 2017

9.Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that due to passage of time for 23 years, many of the witnesses have died including the complainant and therefore, no purpose would be served, if the Department is allowed to proceed with the enquiry. He would also submit that the petitioner on the eve of his retirement on 30.04.2013 was placed under suspension and he was not allowed to retire. The very fact that the disciplinary action has been pending, in fact, the petition against the petitioner has been kept pending both on the criminal side and on the departmental side for 23 long years would itself constitute a grave prejudice to the right of the petitioner and during the long period of pendency of the criminal case and the departmental proceeding, the petitioner must have suffered grave mental agony and anguish. That by itself would constitute a sufficient punishment on the petitioner and therefore, further victimising the petitioner by having a fresh departmental action by ordering de novo enquiry cannot be countenanced both in law and on facts. The learned counsel would also rely on the decision of this Court in K.Deivendran Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul ((2012) 4 MLJ 576) and M.Ramanathan Vs. The Secretary to Government, Chennai and Others (2017-1 WLR 726).
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V Parthiban - Full Document
1   2 Next