Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.57 seconds)Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 19 December, 2008
In the absence of the same, the entire enquiry proceeding
itself is vitiated in view of the ratio held in Roop Singh Negi (supra).
Thus the inquiry report, which is the very basis of the Disciplinary
Authority for imposing the punishment itself is illegal. In view of the
same, the consequential punishment, cannot be sustained.
Union Of India Thur. The Secy. Ministry ... vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Lko. ... on 17 June, 2010
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.39568 of 2016 & 9739 of 2017
“ ... This procedure has been held to be
impermissible in various decisions of this Court,
including the order of an Hon'ble Division Bench
of this Court in Union of India, Ministry of Defence
and another vs. the Registrar, Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and another
reported in (2005) 2 MLJ 154, wherein it was held
that the delinquent employee would be entitled to
a copy of the report of the Public Service
Commission, before passing of an order of
punishment. Further, non-furnishing of the report
would also disable the delinquent officer to give
an effective objection, since he would be deprived
of knowing the contents of the report. Thus, the
manner in which the disciplinary proceedings had
culminated into the impugned punishment,
regulations and scaled proportion is contrary to
the regulations and settled propositions of law.”
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, the Hon'ble Supreme 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
11/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.39568 of 2016 & 9739 of 2017
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.
Balbir Chand vs The Food Corporation Ofindia Ltd. & Ors on 16 December, 1996
19. Likewise, in the case of Balbir Chand Vs. Food Corporation
of India Ltd. and others reported in (1997) 3 SCC 371, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had held that, when there are more than one delinquent
officers involved in the disciplinary proceedings, a common enquiry
requires to be conducted and splitting up of the cases between the co-
13/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.39568 of 2016 & 9739 of 2017
delinquents, should not be encouraged. The relevant portion of the
order reads as follows:
1