Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 155 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing The Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative ... vs Sachindra Nath Pandey & Ors on 21 February, 1995

Mahendra Singh Gurjar vs D/O Post on 23 August, 2022

18. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of The Deputy Registrar, Co- 26 OA No. 494/2020 with MA No. 290/2022 operative Societies, Faizabad vs. Sachindra Nath Pandey & Ors. (supra), relied upon by the respondents, is concerned, we have seen that the Hon'ble Apex Court was not inclined to close the matter only on the ground that about 16 years have elapsed since the date of commencement of disciplinary proceedings, more particularly, when the appellant alone cannot be held responsible for this delay. In that case, though the proceedings against the first respondent were initiated as far back as 1978, proceeding in that behalf are still continuing even after the expiry of about 16 years. It is very clear that in the present case, the facts are completely different. In the present case, we are not on the issue of delay in the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings since the date of its commencement till the date of its conclusion and not also on the issue of non- cooperation on the part of the charged officer. But in the present case, there is a delay of about 19 years in issuing the charge memo itself in the year 2019, i.e. delay in commencement of the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of alleged forged documents produced by him at the time of his initial appointment in the year 2001. There is no question of delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. There is no fault on the part of the applicant in issuing delayed charge sheet but there 27 OA No. 494/2020 with MA No. 290/2022 is a delay in issuing the charge sheet on the part of the respondents. Besides, in the present case, principles of natural justice are not followed as the original documents, which are necessary and connected with the charges levelled against the applicant are not supplied to him and, thus, we cannot say that there is a delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings on the part of the applicant but, here it is the case where there is a delay in issuing the charge sheet on the part of the respondents itself as appointment was given to the applicant in 2001 and charge sheet is issued in 2019.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahendra Singh Gurjar vs D/O Post on 23 August, 2022

18. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of The Deputy Registrar, Co- 26 OA No. 494/2020 with MA No. 290/2022 operative Societies, Faizabad vs. Sachindra Nath Pandey & Ors. (supra), relied upon by the respondents, is concerned, we have seen that the Hon'ble Apex Court was not inclined to close the matter only on the ground that about 16 years have elapsed since the date of commencement of disciplinary proceedings, more particularly, when the appellant alone cannot be held responsible for this delay. In that case, though the proceedings against the first respondent were initiated as far back as 1978, proceeding in that behalf are still continuing even after the expiry of about 16 years. It is very clear that in the present case, the facts are completely different. In the present case, we are not on the issue of delay in the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings since the date of its commencement till the date of its conclusion and not also on the issue of non- cooperation on the part of the charged officer. But in the present case, there is a delay of about 19 years in issuing the charge memo itself in the year 2019, i.e. delay in commencement of the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of alleged forged documents produced by him at the time of his initial appointment in the year 2001. There is no question of delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. There is no fault on the part of the applicant in issuing delayed charge sheet but there 27 OA No. 494/2020 with MA No. 290/2022 is a delay in issuing the charge sheet on the part of the respondents. Besides, in the present case, principles of natural justice are not followed as the original documents, which are necessary and connected with the charges levelled against the applicant are not supplied to him and, thus, we cannot say that there is a delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings on the part of the applicant but, here it is the case where there is a delay in issuing the charge sheet on the part of the respondents itself as appointment was given to the applicant in 2001 and charge sheet is issued in 2019.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Khem Chand Khatri vs M/O Defence on 3 February, 2021

On the other hand, the judgment of the 17 OA No. 291/299/2019 with MA No. 291/13/2020 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Faizabad vs. Sachindra Nath Pandey & Ors. (supra) relied by the respondents cannot be accepted as in that case the facts were that the officer could not be served in enquiry proceedings as he had been avoiding service and did not co-operate in the enquiry. In the present case, whenever the applicant was called, be it before Technical Board of Officers or Court of Inquiry, the applicant has always participated and on the other hand, respondents have failed in giving him relevant documents to justify his stand.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Khem Chand Khatri vs M/O Defence on 3 February, 2021

On the other hand, the judgment of the 17 OA No. 291/299/2019 with MA No. 291/13/2020 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Faizabad vs. Sachindra Nath Pandey & Ors. (supra) relied by the respondents cannot be accepted as in that case the facts were that the officer could not be served in enquiry proceedings as he had been avoiding service and did not co-operate in the enquiry. In the present case, whenever the applicant was called, be it before Technical Board of Officers or Court of Inquiry, the applicant has always participated and on the other hand, respondents have failed in giving him relevant documents to justify his stand.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Trustee Ahmedabad Jesuits School ... vs Biju Jose Vadaken & 3 on 19 September, 2016

In case the delinquent employee has any grievance in respect of the charge­ sheet he must raise the issue by filing a representation and wait for the   decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge­sheet is   challenged before a court/tribunal on the ground of delay in initiation of  disciplinary   proceedings   or   delay   in   concluding   the   proceedings,   the   court/tribunal may quash the charge­sheet after considering the gravity of   the charge and all relevant factors involved in the case weighing all the   facts  both for and against the delinquent  employee  and must reach the   conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstance. (Vide: The State   of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and Anr., AIR 1990 SC 1308; State of  Punjab   and   Ors.   v.   Chaman   Lal   Goyal,   (1995)   2   SCC   570;   Deputy   Registrar, Co­operative Societies, Faizabad v. Sachindra Nath Pandey and   Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 134 : (1995 AIR SCW 3028); Union of India and Anr.   v.   Ashok   Kacker,   1995   Supp   (1)   SCC   180;   Secretary   to   Government,   Prohibition and Excise Department v. L. Srinivasan, (1996) 3 SCC 157;   State  of Andhra  Pradesh  v. N.  Radhakishan,  AIR  1998  SC 1833;  Food   Corporation   of   India   and   Anr.   v.   V.P.   Bhatia,   (1998)   9   SCC   131;   Additional Supdt. of Police v. T. Natarajan, 1999 SCC (LandS) 646; M.V.   Bijlani v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2006 SC 3475; P.D. Agrawal v.   State Bank of India and Ors., AIR 2006 SC 2064; and Government of A.P.   and Ors. v. V. Appala Swamy, (2007) 14 SCC 49) : (AIR 2007 SC (Supp)
Gujarat High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next