Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.95 seconds)
Documents citing Shakti Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 September, 2002

Sh. Chaman Lal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 13 January, 2010

U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad & others v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, 2005 (2) SC SLJ 50, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, 1994 (2) SLJ SC Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1994 (5) SLR 753 Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 High Court in Shakti Singh v. Union of India & others (CWP No.2368/2000) decided on 17.9.2002 Apex Court in Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chairman, J & K Bank Ltd. & others, 2005 SCC (L&S) 689, held that whenever medical leave is applied, it is necessary to produce the proper medical certificates, failing which it would remain as an unauthorized absence.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 211 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Inspector/Exe. Vinod Gill vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 August, 2006

2. In their counter affidavit, the respondents have raised preliminary objection that the writ petition is gross misuse of process of law and Courts and should be dismissed on that ground alone. It is stated that an appeal also lies against the order of the Deputy Inspector General to Inspector General, against the order of Inspector General to the Director General and against the order of the Director General to the Central Government and as such the present writ petition is premature. Efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner in law. On merits, the facts are hardly disputed. However, it is stated that re-appreciation of evidence is not within the domain of this Court as the matter relating to analysis of evidence is within the domain of the Inquiry Officer. The present case is not one in which the principles of unreasonableness is attracted. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shakti Singh v. Union of India and Ors. 2002 VII AD (Delhi) 529. According to the respondents under Rule 52 of the Rules, order of fresh enquiry can be made and this is fundamental principle of administrative law that an order for conducting de-novo enquiry can be passed by the competent authority. The proceedings are neither violative of rules nor principles of natural justice. The petitioner had overstayed the leave without prior permission or sanction of competent authority. Thus, his conduct tantamounts to gross-misconduct and dereliction of duties as he is a member of a disciplined force. It is also not disputed that the records have been transferred to Deputy Inspector General, North Zone to take action and final decision upon the disciplinary proceedings relating to the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the appellate authority in exercise of powers vested under Rule 52 of the Rules, without going into the merit of the case, had set aside the final order dated 15th December, 2004 without prejudice to the passing of fresh order after conducting of de-novo enquiry from the stage of appointing the Inquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority. According to the respondents, the petitioner has not placed any document on record to show that he had taken first aid treatment from any hospital nearer to Nehru Stadium before taking regular treatment from Primary Health Centre, Mehrauli. There is no justification in the plea of the petitioner that he could not inform any unit or competent authority. The letter of the petitioner dated 10th April, 2003 wherein he had again requested for extension of leave on the ground that he fell ill all of a sudden on the night of 15th December, 2002 and had been taking treatment from local doctor of MCD Dispensary was also an afterthought and in contradiction to the different stands taken by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the respondents submit for dismissal of this writ petition.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - S Kumar - Full Document

Dilbagh Singh S/O Mange Ram And Om ... vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through Chief ... on 19 February, 2008

ASI Ram Kishan, taking cue from the order dated 1.4.2003 passed by the High Court of Delhi, filed an application seeking review of order dated 16.4.2002 in OA No. 1557/2001 passed by the Tribunal. The only contention raised in support of the application was that the applicants had been awarded multiple punishments, which would be against the rules. It was urged on behalf of the applicant Ram Kishan that specific ground in the OA was that the applicants had been awarded multiple punishments which was absolutely contrary to the rules and procedure but the said point had not been decided by the Tribunal in specific terms. The limited plea with regard to non-permissibility of multiple punishments was contested by the counsel representing the respondents, but the Tribunal allowed the application for review by holding that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shakti Singh v. Union of India and Ors. in CWP No. 2368/2000 decided on 17.9.2002, multiple punishments would be in gross violation of provisions of rule 8(d)(ii) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules), 1980. In this background, order of the Tribunal dated 16.4.2002 was recalled and the case was remanded to the disciplinary authority for passing a fresh punishment order in the light of the observations of the Tribunal. It is pertinent to mention here that the only point canvassed and which was accepted by the Tribunal pertained to non-permissibility of multiple punishments and the case was remanded to the disciplinary authority for passing a fresh order in the light of observations made by the Tribunal. The order to be passed by the disciplinary authority would thus not go beyond the punishments. The disciplinary authority on order of remand passed by the Tribunal in the review application filed by ASI Ram Kishan, quashed orders dated 24.9.1999 and 26.5.2000, but vide orders dated 13.10.2004 on re-consideration of the matter passed an order of forfeiture of four years' approved service against ASI Ram Kishan. Feeling aggrieved, Ram Kishan filed an appeal to the Joint Commissioner of Police/Operations, which was allowed vide order dated 30.5.2006. The order of punishment passed against Ram Kishan was set aside and his period of suspension was treated as if spent on duty. When Ram Kishan who was jointly proceeded with the applicants, was able to get an order of exoneration, an occasion arose to the applicants to make representation for claiming the same benefit as was accorded to Ram Kishan. However, their representation was rejected vide order dated 23.11.2006 by holding that the order dated 30.5.2006 in respect of Ram Kishan was passed by the appellate authority on his appeal whereas the appeals of the applicants were entertained and rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 26.5.2000, and there would be no provision at that stage under the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal Rules), 1980 to entertain their representation.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

Shri Shakti Singh vs Union Of India on 28 February, 2014

(iv) The respondents shall be entitled to costs which are assessed as Rs.25,000/- each before the 7th day of next calendar year. On the other hand, Shri R.N.Singh, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the ratio deci dendi of the judgment of Honble High Court is that after long delay, the human memory can get blurred and the delinquent cannot be expected to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings properly, thus there is inevitable prejudice to his defence and in the circumstances charge sheet is liable to be quashed on the ground of delay. He tried to distinguish the judgment, taking the plea, that in OA No. 1014/2013 (Shakti Singh Vs. UOI &Ors), the applicant could submit his reply to charge sheet giving all possible defence, thus it cannot be said that on account of delay, his memory is blurred and he is unable to defend himself. He submitted that since said aspects could not be considered by Honble High Court, the judgment needs to be ignored as sub-silentio.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asi (Min) Ashok Kumar Tyagi S/P ... vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 30 July, 2008

However, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and his future career, I take a lenient view and impose the punishment of forfeiture of one year of his approved service for a period of one year entailing reduction in his pay by one stage without cumulative effect. Accordingly, the pay of HC (Min.) Ashok Kumar, No.25/SB is reduced by 1 stage from Rs.3795/- p.m. to Rs.3710/- p.m. temporarily in time scale of pay for a period of 1 year. He will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and on the expiry of this period, postponing his future increments of pay. His suspension period from 13.7.2000 to 18.7.2000 is decided as Not Spent on Duty for all intents and purposes. Appeal preferred by the applicant against the order aforesaid was dismissed on 21.11.2001, as mentioned above. While challenging the order aforesaid in OA No.74/2003 the ground that was pressed before the Tribunal at that stage was that the punishment awarded was dual. Accepting the argument aforesaid on the basis of the decision of the Honble Delhi High court in CWP No.2368/2000 with other connected cases decided on 17.9.2002 in the matter of Shakti Singh v Union of India, the impugned orders were quashed with the direction that the disciplinary authority, if it may so feel, may pick up the loose threads and thereupon, in accordance with law, pass a fresh order in that regard in the light of the decision of the Honble Delhi High Court in Shakti Singhs case (supra). Para 5 of the judgment reads as follows:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Ram Janam Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 15 November, 2006

9. The punishment in so far as it stipulates that it forfeits service of 2 years with reduction in salary would be in order. However, the direction that during the period of reduction no increment would be earned and the punishment would have the effect of postponing future increments of pay, runs counter to the provision of Rule 8(d)(ii) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. This legal position is now fairly well settled. Reference is invited to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Shakti Singh v. Union of India and Ors. reported at 2002 (VIII) AD (Delhi) 529 and decision of the Division Bench in Harpal Singh v. Union of India in WP(C) No.11040/05 to which one of us, (Manmohan Sarin, J) is a party.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M Sarin - Full Document

Prem Kishore Gupta (360/N) vs Addl. Deputy Commissioner Of Police on 13 May, 2011

4. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant Shri S.K. Gupta has confined his submission to the limited issue that this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court (CWP No.2368 of 2000) in Shakti Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2002 (VIII) AD (Delhi) 529. The disciplinary authority has passed a similar order in the case of the petitioner therein also and the same is reproduced as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next