Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 224 (1.30 seconds)
Documents citing Allahabad Bank And Anr vs Deepak Kumar Bhola on 13 March, 1997

R.Ravichandran vs The Additional Commissioner Of Police on 5 October, 2010

Per contra, applying the judgment of the Apex Court in Allahabad Bank and Anr. v. Deepak Kumar Bhola reported in (1997) I LLJ 854 SC, this Court, at Paragraph 6 of the judgment in Dange's case, held that, 6. Coming to the facts of the present case, the petitioner is admittedly facing criminal charges not only under the provisions of Indian Penal Code but also under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and the same is not in dispute. Though detailed arguments were made on the basis of the seriousness of the charges, I do not propose to traverse the same as any discussion or finding on merit will adversely affect the rights of both the petitioner and the respondents. Suffice for me to take into consideration of the fact that the petitioner as of now is facing criminal charges of corruption.
Madras High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 15 - S Manikumar - Full Document

S.Upakaram vs The District Collector on 1 November, 2010

"8. It is against this backdrop, in our opinion, it would be indeed inconceivable that the petitioners should allow the respondents to resume on duty when they are facing serious charges of corruption. Allowing such employee to remain in seat would result in giving him further opportunity to indulge in the acts for which he is being prosecuted. Merely because the respondents are under suspension for over 18-24 months cannot be a ground to pass the order of reinstatement. The Apex Court in Allahabad Bank and Anr. (supra) has made it clear that "the mere fact that nearly ten years have elapsed since the charge-sheet was filed, can also be no ground to allow the respondents to come back to duty on a sensitive post, unless he is exonerated of the charge". In that case a delinquent was an employee of the Bank who allegedly had committed forgery and wrongful withdrawal of money and was under suspension.
Madras High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 1 - K Chandru - Full Document

K.S.Abdul Rashid vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 August, 2013

63. The decision made by the Honourable Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank case is proximate, to the issue as to whether a Government servant can be continued under suspension pending investigation into crime/trial or pending enquiry into charges or into contemplation of serious charges involving corruption, embezzlement and other misconduct involving moral turpitude and integrity of Government servant or a employee of Public Sector undertaking or Corporation or members or other Board owned and controlled by the Government. The Government or the appointing authority/disciplinary authority, cannot be compelled to revoke the order of suspension issued to a Government Servant, who is involved in a serious charges of corruption, and such other charges involving moral turpitude. A distinction has to be made in the matter of placing a government service or continuing him under suspension, in case of corruption charges. Corruption is like a canker which erodes a system. Keeping a person out of employment, on account of corruption charges, into an enquiry or investigation into a crime or trial, is purely the discretion of the appointing authority.
Madras High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 4 - S Manikumar - Full Document

The Secretary To Government vs S.R.Venkatesh on 3 October, 2019

13. The decision made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank case is proximate, to the issue as to whether a 30 http://www.judis.nic.in Writ Appeal No.3370 of 2019 Government servant can be continued under suspension pending investigation into crime/trial or pending enquiry into charges or into contemplation of serious charges involving corruption, embezzlement and other misconduct involving moral turpitude and integrity of the Government servant or a employee of Public Sector undertaking or Corporation or employees in Board owned and controlled by the Government. The Government or the appointing authority/disciplinary authority, cannot be compelled to revoke the order of suspension issued to a Government Servant, who is involved in a serious charges of corruption, and such other charges involving moral turpitude. A distinction has to be made in the matter of placing a government service or continuing him under suspension, in case of corruption charges.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mahendra Nath Verma vs U.P. State Public Services Tribunal ... on 4 September, 2018

46. His conduct comes within the category of moral turpitude as he disclosed vileness and depravity in the doing of his duties being a member of disciplined P.A.C. force. The expression 'moral turpitude' means anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty of good morals. It implies depravity and wickedness of character or disposition of the person charged with the particular conduct. Every false statement made by a person may not be moral turpitude, but it would be so if it discloses vileness or depravity in the doing of any private and social duty which a person owes to his fellow men or to the society in general. The expression moral turpitude was explained and held in the case in Baleshwar Singh Vs. District Magistrate and Collector reported in AIR 1959 Allahabad 71, which was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank Vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola reported in (1997) 4 SCC 1. His conduct was of unbecoming a government servant and member of disciplined P.A.C. force.
Allahabad High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

K.S.Abdul Rashid vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 August, 2013

63. The decision made by the Honourable Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank case is proximate, to the issue as to whether a Government servant can be continued under suspension pending investigation into crime/trial or pending enquiry into charges or into contemplation of serious charges involving corruption, embezzlement and other misconduct involving moral turpitude and integrity of Government servant or a employee of Public Sector undertaking or Corporation or members or other Board owned and controlled by the Government. The Government or the appointing authority/disciplinary authority, cannot be compelled to revoke the order of suspension issued to a Government Servant, who is involved in a serious charges of corruption, and such other charges involving moral turpitude. A distinction has to be made in the matter of placing a government service or continuing him under suspension, in case of corruption charges. Corruption is like a canker which erodes a system. Keeping a person out of employment, on account of corruption charges, into an enquiry or investigation into a crime or trial, is purely the discretion of the appointing authority.
Madras High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Punjab National Bank vs Sh Niraj Gupta & Anr. on 9 July, 2024

28. It is submitted that although „moral turpitude‟ has not been expressly defined under any statute however, the same constitutes an acts/conduct which is contrary to the principles of justice, honesty and morality. To substantiate the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner Bank placed reliance upon the judgments passed in Sushil Kumar Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 7247/2022 Page 22 of 53 Digitally Signed By:GAURAV SHARMA Signing Date:11.07.2024 18:58:08 Singhal Vs Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank1 and Allahabad Bank Vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola2.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

M.S.Rajendran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 November, 2011

18.The Supreme court had also held that if investigation is conducted by the CBI, which resulted in filing of charge sheet before the Special Court for various offences, that is sufficient for concluding that the Government servant should be suspended and the fact that there was delay of 10 years cannot be a ground for the Government servant to come back to duty unless he was exonerated of charges as held in Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola reported in (1997) 4 SCC 1. The following passages found in paragraphs 10 and 11 may be usefully reproduced below:
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - K Chandru - Full Document

Surjit Singh Chowdhry Ex-Major vs Municipal Corporation Delhi on 26 May, 2000

25. In this case the charges against the petitioner are nodoubt, very serious. The criminal case registered against the petitioner is u/S. 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the FIR, petitioner had demanded, accepted and obtained Rs. 5000/- as part payment of illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- from Shri J. Dalal Sharma, Security Supervisor, MCD, I.S. Hospital, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi in consideration of his adjustment of D.A. and pension at the time of his retirement and forwarding pension file to Additional Commissioner (Health, MCD) for sanction. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is stated that the case of the petitioner has been reviewed on many occasions but he was not found fit for reinstatement by the disciplinary authority as it was observed that while holding a senior post in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, it was the primary duty of the petitioner to eradicate and eliminate corruption from the department but the petitioner acting contrary to the said norms expected of an official of his rank indulged in the act of corruption himself by not maintaining the standards of integrity and betraying the evidence of his senior officers reposed in him. Therefore, when the petitioner is facing such type of charges in criminal case pending against him it would not be in public interest to allow such an employee to continue to remain in duty as it would result in giving him further opportunity to indulge in such acts for which he is being prosecuted. Therefore, in this case I am inclined to follow the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of All India Bank and another Vs. D kumar Bhola (supra) wherein the Court refused to interfere with the order of suspension even when 10 years had elapsed since the charge-sheet was filed. I am quoting the relevant observations from the judgment once again. Speaking for the Court this is what Kirpal, J had to say:-
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 7 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next