Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 89 (1.62 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Ors vs Dr. (Smt.) Sudha Salhan on 7 January, 1998

State Of U.P.Thru ... vs Kamlesh Chandra on 23 May, 2023

"16. Learned counsel for the respondent made an endeavour to contend that in the light of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman the Sealed Cover Procedure can be resorted to only after charge-memo is received or a charge-sheet is filed and that unless such an event had happened at the relevant time the government employee cannot be denied of his promotion, if he is otherwise entitled to it. Learned counsel also submitted that Jankiraman was since followed in Union of India v. Dr Sudha Salhan and Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana. The clauses of the second para of the Sealed Cover Procedure considered in Jankiraman were not those involved in the present case and hence that decision is of no avail to the respondent. In the other two decisions the facts warranted application of the ratio contained in Jankiraman. The added factor in these two cases was that the public servant concerned had been exonerated of the charges framed by the criminal courts. In the present case the respondent is still facing trial for serious offences, and hence the situation is different.
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - D K Upadhyaya - Full Document

Shiv Dhari Tiwari vs Union Of India on 10 February, 2023

"In the case of Union of India and others Vs. Dr. Sudha Salhan (Smt.); (1998) 3 SCC 394 the Apex Court after considering the observation made by a Three Judge decision in Union of India and Ors. Vs. K.B. Jankiraman & Ors. (1991 (4) SCC 109, held that if on the date on which the name of a person is considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the higher post, such person is neither under suspension nor has any departmental proceedings been initiated against him, his name, if he is found meritorious and suitable, has to be brought on the select list and the "sealed cover" procedure cannot be adopted. The recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee can be placed in a "sealed cover" only if on the date of consideration of the name for promotion, the departmental proceedings had been initiated or were pending or on its conclusion, final orders had not been passed by the appropriate authority.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A.Jalender Reddy, S/O Sathi Reddy, Aged ... vs The State Of Telanana, Rep.By Its ... on 17 April, 2017

Learned counsel also submitted that Jankiraman [(1991) 4 SCC 109 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 387 : (1993) 23 ATC 322] was since followed in Union of India v. Dr Sudha Salhan [(1998) 3 SCC 394 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 884] and Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana [(1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036]. The clauses of the second para of the Sealed Cover Procedure considered in Jankiraman [(1991) 4 SCC 109 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 387 : (1993) 23 ATC 322] were not those involved in the present case and hence that decision is of no avail to the respondent. In the other two decisions the facts warranted application of the ratio contained in Jankiraman [(1991) 4 SCC 109 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 387 : (1993) 23 ATC 322] . The added factor in these two cases was that the public servant concerned had been exonerated of the charges framed by the criminal courts. In the present case the respondent is still facing trial for serious offences, and hence the situation is different.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - P N Rao - Full Document

Dr Rakesh Shankar vs Home Affairs on 1 June, 2023

"In the case of Union of India and others Vs. Dr. Sudha Salhan (Smt.); (1998) 3 SCC 394 the Apex Court after considering the observation made by a Three Judge decision in Union of India and Ors. Vs. K.B. Jankiraman & Ors. (1991 (4) SCC 109, held that if on the date on which the name of a person is considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the higher post, such person is neither under suspension nor has any departmental proceedings been initiated against him, his name, if he is found meritorious and suitable, has to be brought on the select list and the "sealed cover" procedure cannot be adopted. The recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee can be placed in a "sealed cover" only if on the date of consideration of the name for promotion, the departmental proceedings had been initiated or were pending or on its conclusion, final orders had not been passed by the appropriate authority. It is obvious that if the officers, against whom the departmental proceedings were initiated, is ultimately exonerated, the sealed cover containing the 7 recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee would be opened, and the recommendation would be given effect to. Admittedly, at the time of considering the candidature of the petitioner i.e. on 07.09.2016, for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer Level-II nothing adverse was existing on record against the petitioner as the charge-sheet dated 28.09.2016 was served upon him vide letter dated 17.10.2016 of the Inquiry Officer. As a matter of fact, the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting dated 07.09.2016 had already considered and recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion. Subsequent issuance of charge-sheet and punishment has no relation with the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post in question and, therefore, there is no justifiable reason for denying promotion to the petitioner. For the reasons stated above, the State Government is directed to examine the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, Level-II in the light of the observation made hereinabove together with the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 07.09.2016 and if any person junior to the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Chief Engineer, Level- II, the petitioner shall also be promoted to the said post from the same date. The exercise in this regard shall be completed within a fortnight from the date of production of certified copy of this order."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kishorchandra Gandulal Pethani vs State Of Gujarat - Thro. Arjunsingh - Ias ... on 18 March, 2005

In case of Union of India v. Dr. Sudha Salhan (supra) it was observed that "We are in respectful agreement with the above decision. We are also of the opinion that if on the date on which the name of a person is considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to a higher post, such person is neither under suspension nor has any departmental proceedings initiated against him, his name, if he is found meritorious and suitable, has to be brought on the select list and the "sealed cover" procedure cannot be adopted".
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next