Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.19 seconds)Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 428 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 477 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs N. Radhakishan on 7 April, 1998
"It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined
principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where
there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings.
Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to
be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts
and circumstances in that case. the essence of the matter is
that the court has to take into consideration all relevant
factors and to balance and weight them to determine if it is
in the interest of clean and honest administration that the
disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate
after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is
no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has
a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are
concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo
mental agony and also monetary loss when these are
unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in
delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has
vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to
consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what
13 O.A.No. 260/00055 of 2019
account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained
prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the
face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary
authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its
employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice
that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to
perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance
with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a
penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings
should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules
but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the
charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to or when
there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the
disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance
these two diverse consideration.
Ram Lal And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 3 June, 2004
In view of the discussions made above, going by the allegations
made in the departmental charge sheet and the fact that the final
outcome of the CBI case in 4 (Four) TR cases filed and pending before
the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa is not known, instead of quashing
the departmental charge sheet, the matter is left to the competent
authority/respondents to examine the level of acquittal in the CBI
Case, as submitted in the counter, and decide further proceeding in
pursuance of the charge sheet keeping in mind the decision in the
case of Ram Lal (supra). The result of such consideration be
intimated to the applicant in a reasoned order within a period of 60
15 O.A.No. 260/00055 of 2019
days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Accordingly,
the stay order granted by this Tribunal, that is continuing till date,
stands vacated.