Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 8104 (1.28 seconds)
Documents citing Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union Of India Thr Its Secretary & Anr on 16 February, 2015

Ajay Kumar vs M/O Railways on 27 October, 2015

7. In MA No.239 of 2014 filed by the applicant seeking condonation of delay, the applicant has stated that after his joining as Office Clerk on 19.10.2005, he remained busy in sports activities for nearly five years and also in attending the office for duty. Thereafter, he was on Page 5 of 16 OA 244/14 6 Ajay Kumar v. UOI & anr extraordinary leave for attending to his old father who suffered from cancer and was undergoing treatment at Delhi. Therefore, he could not move the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance as now raised by him in the O.A. 7.1 In the present case, the cause of action had arisen on 19.10.2005 when the applicant was appointed to the post of Office Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- with fixation of his pay at Rs.4350/- on grant of 17 advance increments. We are not satisfied with the explanation given by the applicant for the delay of more than seven years in raising the issue of his appointment and/or change of his designation from 'Office Clerk (grade Rs.3050-4590/-)' to 'Senior Clerk (grade Rs.4500-7000/-)' by making a representation, dated 23.3.2013, to the respondent-Railways, and for the delay of more than eight years in filing the present Original Application on 14.1.2014.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Munendra Kumar vs Government Of Nct Delhi & Ors. on 25 October, 2024

8. The primordial contention of the Petitioner, as canvassed by learned counsel, is that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), if the charge sheet is not issued within a period of 90 days from the date of suspension, the suspension would automatically lapse. There is no quarrel with the proposition that even though suspension is not a specified penalty but it does affect an employee and prolonged and indefinite suspension causes injury and prejudice and therefore, Courts have repeatedly asserted that disciplinary proceedings, if initiated, must be concluded within a reasonable time and an employee should not be indefinitely suspended. Prolonged suspension does become punitive in nature, more so when it is for an unjustified reason. However, it cannot be overlooked that the employer has a right to suspend an employee to refrain him from perpetuating the alleged misconduct and/or destroying the evidence. Each case, therefore, turns on its own facts and circumstances and no hard and fast rule can be laid down that only because chargesheet has not been issued within 90 days of initial suspension period or even during extended suspension period for a justified reason, the suspension period would automatically lapse.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Dr.Sri.Pa.Dhevarajan vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 30 March, 2022

Thus, we are of the view that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary, supra, does not lay down absolute proposition of law that an order of suspension cannot be continued beyond the period of three months if the memorandum of charges/charge~sheet is not served within three months. Rather, the issue of challenge to the order of suspension should be analyzed on the facts of each case. It is keeping with the gravity of the charges and the period therein because in case of trap, the order of interference with the order of suspension may have serious consequences.''
Madras High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - V Parthiban - Full Document

Dinesh Bishnoi vs Revenue on 1 March, 2023

12. As regards to ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) as cited by the counsel for the applicant and subsequent recitations of judgments which have reiterated the decision of the Apex court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) case, the counsel for the respondents stated that the Apex court has not taken away the power of extending the suspension period of an employee beyond the initial 90 days.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V.Saravanan vs The Commissioner Of Municipal ... on 24 March, 2022

7. This Court is in agreement with the submissions made on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 56 W.P.No.40923 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.11225 of 2020 behalf of the petitioner. Although the Government has distinguished between non-vigilance and vigilance cases in respect of the application of the ratio laid down by the Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case, nonetheless, there are number of decisions which uniformly held that the prolonged suspension even otherwise cannot be countenanced in law. In this case, the criminal case registered against the petitioner is at the FIR stage, even as on date. The respondents have also not thought fit to initiate disciplinary action in respect of the allegation of corruption against the petitioner. That being the case, keeping the petitioner under suspension for more than 6 years, cannot be justified at all, under any circumstances.
Madras High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - V Parthiban - Full Document

Mr.O.Baskaran vs The Additional Director General Of ... on 14 November, 2019

"From Thiru. P.W.C. Davidar, I.A.S., 10/18 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.5874 of 2017 Principal Secretary to Government To All Secretaries / Principal Secretaries to Government, Departments of Secretariat All Heads of Departments All Boards / Corporations / Public Sector Undertakings Sir / Madam, Sub:- Limitation fixed on the period of suspension - Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India through its Secretary & ANR in Civil Appeal No.1912 of 2015 (arising opt of SLP (C) No.31761 of 2013) dated 16-02-2015 - Clarification - Regarding" — Ref:- 1. Government Letter No.13519 / N /2015-1, Personneland Administrative Reforms (N) Department , dated 23-07-2015.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - S Prasad - Full Document

Sandeep Jot Singh vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes & ... on 21 January, 2022

It is stated that in the present case, undisputedly the applicant was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 29.09.2017, CBI had filed their charge-sheet in Special Court on 25/11/2017, the applicant was granted bail by the Criminal Court on 08.12.2017. The suspension of the applicant was extended vide order dated 21.12.2017, the competent authority issued sanction for prosecution vide order dated 26.03.2018. Thereafter, the suspension review committee extended the suspension period from time to time. The applicant was served with charge memorandum under Rule 9, Rule 14 for major penalty on 26.02.2019 and the disciplinary proceedings was started against and same is pending against the Applicant. Considering the said facts, the review committee recommended the extension of suspension and same has been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, the impugned order for extension of suspension of the applicant for a (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA/503/2020 ) 9 period of 180 days issued on 08.12.2020 (Annexure A./6 referred)./ Thereafter, again the suspension of the applicant has been extended and same is continuing till date. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim any relief by relying upon the judgment rendered in case of Ajay Kumar (Supra) as the facts of the present case are different.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kiran Kumar vs Deptt Of Posts on 23 July, 2025

In the case of Bimal Kumar Mohanty (supra), the Apex Court held that suspension is not a punishment, but only one for forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. It is with the direction that each case may be considered on its facts and taking into account the gravity of the offence or the misconduct. The interference with the order of suspension should not be driven in reference to a judgment, but needs to be determined on facts and after considering the rules governing the delinquent. Judicial review in such matters should be minimal. In the instant case, the allegation against the delinquent is quite serious, as he not only demanded but accepted bribe and was caught red-handed by the Anti- Corruption Department. The aforesaid were the relevant facts, but were not considered by the learned Single Judge while causing interference with the order of suspension.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.Ramu vs The Commissioner on 14 November, 2019

"From Thiru. P.W.C. Davidar, I.A.S., Principal Secretary to Government To All Secretaries / Principal Secretaries to Government, Departments of Secretariat All Heads of Departments All Boards / Corporations / Public Sector Undertakings Sir / Madam, Sub:- Limitation fixed on the period of suspension - Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India through its Secretary & ANR in Civil Appeal No.1912 of 2015 (arising opt of SLP (C) No.31761 of 2013) dated 16-02-2015 - Clarification - Regarding" — Ref:- 1. Government Letter No.13519 / N /2015-1, Personneland Administrative Reforms (N) Department , dated 23-07-2015.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next