Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.45 seconds)
Kootha Pillai vs The Commissioner on 5 November, 2008 cites

Bhagirathi Jena vs Board Of Directors, O.S.F.G. And Ors on 31 March, 1999

69. In view of the settled proposition of law on the aspect of inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating or conducting disciplinary proceedings, on the part of the employer, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the view that initiating fresh proceeding or continuing the departmental action against the petitioner after retirement, at this length of time, would cause serious prejudice, particularly when the relationship of master and servant is snapped. Therefore, on the facts of this case, the only course of action that was available to the respondents was to follow the mandatory procedure contemplated under FR 56(1)(c), i.e., suspension of the Government servant or the employee of the local body and retain him from service for the purpose of holding an enquiry into the charges said to have been pending. The impugned order is liable to be struck down on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, as held in Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Director, O.S.F.C. Reported in 1999(3) SCC 666, State of Tamil Nadu v. R.Karupiah reported in 2005 (3) CTC 4, P.Muthusamy v. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd., reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 504 and N.Kunnai Gowder v. the Coimbatore District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd., reported in 2007 (5) CTC 491, and for inordinate and unexplained delay in concluding the enquiry. Further, in the light of the decisions of this Court, the authorities have no jurisdiction to order for recovery of time barred arrears of property tax, professional tax and lease amount from the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 258 - Full Document

N. Kunnai Gowder vs The Coimbatore District Co-Op. Milk ... on 30 August, 2007

69. In view of the settled proposition of law on the aspect of inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating or conducting disciplinary proceedings, on the part of the employer, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the view that initiating fresh proceeding or continuing the departmental action against the petitioner after retirement, at this length of time, would cause serious prejudice, particularly when the relationship of master and servant is snapped. Therefore, on the facts of this case, the only course of action that was available to the respondents was to follow the mandatory procedure contemplated under FR 56(1)(c), i.e., suspension of the Government servant or the employee of the local body and retain him from service for the purpose of holding an enquiry into the charges said to have been pending. The impugned order is liable to be struck down on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, as held in Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Director, O.S.F.C. Reported in 1999(3) SCC 666, State of Tamil Nadu v. R.Karupiah reported in 2005 (3) CTC 4, P.Muthusamy v. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd., reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 504 and N.Kunnai Gowder v. the Coimbatore District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd., reported in 2007 (5) CTC 491, and for inordinate and unexplained delay in concluding the enquiry. Further, in the light of the decisions of this Court, the authorities have no jurisdiction to order for recovery of time barred arrears of property tax, professional tax and lease amount from the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 34 - P D Premkumar - Full Document

The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By ... vs R. Karuppiah, Inspector Of Police ... on 1 April, 2005

69. In view of the settled proposition of law on the aspect of inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating or conducting disciplinary proceedings, on the part of the employer, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the view that initiating fresh proceeding or continuing the departmental action against the petitioner after retirement, at this length of time, would cause serious prejudice, particularly when the relationship of master and servant is snapped. Therefore, on the facts of this case, the only course of action that was available to the respondents was to follow the mandatory procedure contemplated under FR 56(1)(c), i.e., suspension of the Government servant or the employee of the local body and retain him from service for the purpose of holding an enquiry into the charges said to have been pending. The impugned order is liable to be struck down on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, as held in Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Director, O.S.F.C. Reported in 1999(3) SCC 666, State of Tamil Nadu v. R.Karupiah reported in 2005 (3) CTC 4, P.Muthusamy v. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd., reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 504 and N.Kunnai Gowder v. the Coimbatore District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd., reported in 2007 (5) CTC 491, and for inordinate and unexplained delay in concluding the enquiry. Further, in the light of the decisions of this Court, the authorities have no jurisdiction to order for recovery of time barred arrears of property tax, professional tax and lease amount from the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 49 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

N. Mani vs The Commissioner, Villupuram ... on 14 February, 2006

56. Following Nagarajan's case, another learned single Judge of this Court in Mani, N. v. The Commissioner, Villpuram Municipality reported in 2006 (1) CTC 632, tested the correctness of a show cause notice issued against a Revenue Inspector for recovery of the arrears of time barred property tax and lease amount. Facts of this case are, the petitioner therein was appointed as Bill Collector in the year 1963 in the respondent Municipality and lateron promoted as Revenue Inspector on 13.4.1989. He retired from service on 31.10.2000. Impugned show cause notices therein were issued calling upon him to show cause as to why the loss suffered by the Municipality on account of failure to discharge his official duty to collect the arrears towards property tax and lease amount should not be recovered from him. The said show cause notices were under challenge on the ground of jurisdictional issue relying upon the earlier orders of the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3503 of 1996 dated 28.11.1996 and O.A.No.4761 of 1992 dated 19.12.1997. Earlier, the Tribunal held that the Revenue Officers in the Local bodies cannot be made liable for the time barred arrears of tax dues and no recovery can be made from them. The conclusion was arrived at on the basis of paragraph 3 of G.O.Ms.No.1881 R.D.& L.A. Department, dated 14.9.1981, wherein it was stated that the responsibility to take proceedings to recover tax before they become time barred, vests only with the Commissioner and the Revenue Officers are not responsible for the tax arrears, having become time barred and that the only duty of the Revenue Officers is to report about the tax arrears.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 12 - N N Vasanthakumar - Full Document

V. Nagarajan vs Commr., Salem Municipality on 21 January, 1988

56. Following Nagarajan's case, another learned single Judge of this Court in Mani, N. v. The Commissioner, Villpuram Municipality reported in 2006 (1) CTC 632, tested the correctness of a show cause notice issued against a Revenue Inspector for recovery of the arrears of time barred property tax and lease amount. Facts of this case are, the petitioner therein was appointed as Bill Collector in the year 1963 in the respondent Municipality and lateron promoted as Revenue Inspector on 13.4.1989. He retired from service on 31.10.2000. Impugned show cause notices therein were issued calling upon him to show cause as to why the loss suffered by the Municipality on account of failure to discharge his official duty to collect the arrears towards property tax and lease amount should not be recovered from him. The said show cause notices were under challenge on the ground of jurisdictional issue relying upon the earlier orders of the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3503 of 1996 dated 28.11.1996 and O.A.No.4761 of 1992 dated 19.12.1997. Earlier, the Tribunal held that the Revenue Officers in the Local bodies cannot be made liable for the time barred arrears of tax dues and no recovery can be made from them. The conclusion was arrived at on the basis of paragraph 3 of G.O.Ms.No.1881 R.D.& L.A. Department, dated 14.9.1981, wherein it was stated that the responsibility to take proceedings to recover tax before they become time barred, vests only with the Commissioner and the Revenue Officers are not responsible for the tax arrears, having become time barred and that the only duty of the Revenue Officers is to report about the tax arrears.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bani Singh And Another on 5 April, 1990

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and another reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 738, the Supreme Court had come down heavily against the latches on the part of the employer in conducting departmental enquiry and after finding out that there was no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay, held that it would be unfair to order departmental enquiry to proceed further.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 761 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Union Of India & Others vs Cat & Others on 1 August, 2008

In Union of India v. CAT reported in 2005 (2) CTC 169 (DB), this Court held that, "The delay remains totally unexplained. Therefore, we have no hesitation at all in concluding that the ground of inordinate delay in proceeding with the departmental enquiry as referred to above by us, would come in the way of the Govt., to continue with the enquiry any further.............."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 11 - A Tewari - Full Document

P.V. Mahadevan vs M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 8 August, 2005

In P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403, this Court after referring to various decisions, held that, "The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore be avoided not only in the interest of the government employee but in public interests and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 781 - Full Document
1   2 Next