State Bank Of India And Anr. vs Rattan Singh on 24 August, 1999
19.The said judgment came to be followed in a subsequent judgment in the
case relating to State Bank of India Vs. Rattan Singh (cited supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)Allahabad Bank And Anr vs Deepak Kumar Bhola on 13 March, 1997
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:
Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs ... vs Tarak Nath Ghosh on 12 February, 1971
8.The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Govt. of India, Ministry of Home
Affairs v. Tarak Nath Ghosh reported in (1971) 1 SCC 734 held that there is no
difference between definite charges being framed and when the competent
authority was in receipt of allegations against the Government servant. In both
cases the suspension order made will have to be treated as same. In this
context, it is necessary to refer to the following passages found in paragraphs
9 and 13 of the said judgment which reads as follows:
Shyam Lal Yadev And Ors. vs Smt. Kusum Dhawan And Ors. on 10 November, 1978
10.The Supreme Court had also held that once there was prima facie case to
hold the suspension order legal, then merely because the charge sheeted
Government servant will sustain some disadvantage cannot be a reason to stall
the suspension and that the court cannot intervene and undo the acts of internal
management, vide its judgment in Shyam Lal Yadav v. Kusum Dhawan reported in
(1979) 4 SCC 143. In paragraph 3, the Supreme Court had observed as follows:
Government Of A.P. vs V. Sivaraman on 12 January, 1990
11.The Supreme Court had held that when the suspension order is passed, it
is for the Government to review the said order and it continues to operate until
it is revoked by the competent authority vide its judgment in Govt. of A.P. v.
V. Sivaraman reported in (1990) 3 SCC 57. The following passages found in
paragraph 4 of the said judgment may be usefully extracted below:
Union Of India vs Rajiv Kumar Bani Singh on 18 July, 2003
14.Taking the similar view in Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar reported in
(2003) 6 SCC 516, the Supreme Court had held that if suspension is for a long
period that by itself cannot make the suspension invalid. In paragraphs 15 and
29, it was observed as follows:
Balvantray Ratilal Patel vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 December, 1967
"15...... it is clear that the order of suspension does not lose its efficacy
and is not automatically terminated the moment the detention comes to an end and
the person is set at large. It could be modified and revoked by another order as
envisaged under Rule 10(5)(c) and until that order is made, the same continues
by the operation of Rule 10(5)(a) and the employee has no right to be reinstated
in service. This position was also highlighted in Balvantrai Ratilal Patel v.
State of Maharashtra2. Indication of the expression "pending further order" in
the order of suspension was the basis for the aforesaid view.
Punjab National Bank And Ors. vs Jagdish Singh on 11 September, 1997
In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Jagdish Singh2 (a
decision to which one of us was a party), it was held that when a bank employee
is being prosecuted, the bank has the power to suspend the employee under the
Bipartite Settlement......" (Emphasis added)
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Udai Narain on 30 March, 1998
16.Taking exception to courts passing orders of revocation of suspension
even after a charge sheet was filed in the criminal case on the plea that there
will not be any further necessity to keep the Government servant under
suspension, it was held that there is distinction between a suspension during
criminal investigation and the continued suspension after the charge sheet was
filed. This view was expressed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Udai
Narain reported in (1998) 5 SCC 535. In paragraph 4, the Supreme Court had
observed as follows:
State Of Orissa vs Bimal Kumar Mohanty on 21 February, 1994
17.The Supreme Court had also held that suspension is not a punishment and
it is passed only to forbid or to disable an employee to discharge his duty and
it is a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or enquiry and
that the court should not proceed in haste to pass an order interdicting
suspension and normally the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority
while passing order takes into consideration the gravity of misconduct, vide its
judgment in State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty reported in (1994) 4 SCC 126.
The following passages found in paragraphs 5,13 and 14 may be usefully
reproduced below: