Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Chairman,A.P.State Electricity Board ... vs M.Kurmi Naidu on 13 September, 2006

Manojkumar Nemaji Shahare vs Zilla Parishad, Nagpur Through Chief ... on 22 December, 2018

When the disciplinary authority i.e. the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent no.1 passed the order of penalty by impugned order dated 30.03.2015, under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, the petitioner could file appeal only before the respondent no.2 Divisional Commissioner i.e. the very appellate authority, who had issued memo of charges against him. This clearly shows that even in the facts of the present case, the right of appeal available to the petitioner was vitiated. It could not be said to ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 23:30:38 ::: 18 WP489-17.odt be cured because there was no further right of appeal available to the petitioner. As a result, in the facts of the present case, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 in the cases of Chairman, A.P. State Electricity Board .vs. M. Kurmi Naidu (supra ) and Goa Shipyard Ltd. .vs. Babu Thomas (supra), would not be applicable.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

National Federation Of Fishers ... vs Rajendra Singh And Others on 15 February, 2019

20. The decisions in Surjit Ghosh (supra) and Balbir Chand (supra) were considered again in Chairman AP State Electricity Board v. M. Kurmi Naidu (supra). On the facts of that case, it was noted that the Member Secretary of the Board was the DA. The penalty of compulsory retirement from service was however inflicted by the Chairman of the Board who was LPA No.462/2016 Page 9 of 14 the Appellate Authority. It was noted that the employee had filed before the Board a detailed petition styled as „mercy petition‟. The Board then treated that petition as an appeal and rejected it. That order passed by the Board was not challenged and attained finality. The Supreme Court accordingly therefore held that it could not be said that the Appellant was deprived of any remedy of appeal.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. ... vs G.G. Bhat S/O Late Sri Gajanana Bhat on 8 February, 2008

Considering the second appeal provided in the said case, the Apex Court held that the right of appeal is still available with the employee and the said decision is followed by the Apex Court in the A.P. State Electricity Board case wherein the order of dismissal was passed by the appellate authority who is a Chairman and thereafter, the employee had filed a petition before the Board. Though it is in the nature of mercy petition still it is held that there is an opportunity to file petition and does not deny the right of appeal to the employee.
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S B Adi - Full Document

Air India Limited vs Ms. Shashikala Jatav on 16 September, 2010

The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, A.P. State Electricity Board and another vs. M. Kurmi Naidu3 wherein a similar view has been taken that the authority higher than the disciplinary authority can pass an order of punishment. In paragraphs 7 and 8, after considering the Regulation applicable in the said case held as under.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - P Majmudar - Full Document

WP(C)/7096/2017 on 23 April, 2021

In the case of Chairman, A.P. State Electricity Board & Ors Vs. M. Kurmi Naidu, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 62, the Apex Court had referred to other judgments of the Apex Court wherein it had been held that an authority lower than the appointing authority cannot take any decision in the matter of disciplinary action. But there is no prohibition in law that the higher authority could not take a decision or impose the penalty as the primary authority in the matter of disciplinary action. However, in those circumstances, where the appellate remedy provided under the rules is denied, the same caused prejudice to the delinquent officer, as he would otherwise have availed of the appellate remedy as his right to consider his case by an appellate authority was not available. Thus, though there is no bar for a higher authority than the Disciplinary Authority to impose a penalty as the primary authority in the departmental proceedings, the employee cannot be deprived of the remedy of appeal, which is a substantive right given to him under the Rules/Regulations.
Gauhati High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M Zothankhuma - Full Document
1   2 Next