Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.01 seconds)Superintendent (Tech. I) Central ... vs Pratap Rai on 26 April, 1978
30.3.2 This judgment provides a bridge between the
respondent on the one hand and the acts of the petitioner on the
other hand and is more directly applicable to the facts of the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21/40
W.P.No.17266 of 2017
30.4 There was also reference to Superintendent (Tech.I)
Central Excise, I.D.D.Jabalpur and others v Pratap Rai (1978) 3
SCC 133. The facts in that case are singularly different wherein, an
earlier order was passed 'without prejudice' setting aside the
proceedings of adjudication. A second adjudication was initiated. It
was justified on the ground that the earlier order had been passed
'without prejudice'. Those facts, cannot be applied to the facts this
case.
Thimmasamudram Tobacco Co. vs Asst. Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 17 October, 1960
30.6 The next judgment which was relied on was the
judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22/40
W.P.No.17266 of 2017
Thimmasamudram Tobacco Co., vs Assistant Collector of Central
Excise, Nellore Dn, Nellore [AIR 1961 AP 324]. There again, it had
been stated that if the earlier proceedings had been set aside on
the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, then the
procedure can be started once again. This judgment was relied on
to justify the initiation of fresh charges on the second occasion
against the petitioner herein.
Anand Narain Shukla vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 1979
31. The respondents also relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anand Narain Shukla v State of Madhya
Pradesh [(1980) 1 SCC 252]. This judgment again would not come
to the rescue of the respondents since, therein, after the appellant
had been reinstated he was placed under suspension, fresh
proceedings were started on the basis of the 'same old charges'. It
is thus seen that though the earlier order was quashed on technical
grounds, the same old charges had been proceeded against.
Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated as follows:-
Vipulbhai Mansingbhai Chaudhary vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 17 April, 2017
32. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents also placed reliance on Vipulbhai Mansinghbhai
Chaudhary v State of Gujarat and another [(2017) 13 SCC 1]. In
that case, a show-cause notice was first issued. The show-cause
notice was quashed. A second show-cause notice was issued. It
must be pointed out that there is ample difference between a
show-cause notice and a charge memo. A show cause notice is a
notice issued calling upon the delinquent to show cause or give
necessary explanation as to why further proceedings need not be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
24/40
W.P.No.17266 of 2017
initiated against him. Opportunity is inbuilt in the show-cause
notice itself. A charge memo on the other hand is initiation of
disciplinary proceedings and a further serious step taken by the
employer against the employee. Two separate show-cause notices
being issued cannot be equated with a first proceedings being set
aside and the second charge memo being issued. Therefore, this
judgment again is distinguishable on facts.
Chief Of The Army Staff And Others vs Major Dharam Pal Kukrety on 21 March, 1985
34. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on
the judgment in Chief of Army Staff and others v Major Dharam Pal
Kukrety [(1985) 2 SCC 412], and more importantly, placed
reliance on paragraph 5, which reads as follows:-
The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961
Burdwan Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd.& Anr vs Asim Chatterjee & Ors on 18 January, 2012
46. I would hold that the respondents have a right to
conduct disciplinary proceedings in view of the judgment of the
learned Single Judge of this court in M.Sakthivel (supra) and
Burdwan Central Cooperative Bank Limited (supra). But that does
not mean that they have the right to issue multiple charge memos
on the same set of facts against a delinquent. They have to issue a
charge memo, once and proceed in the manner known to law. If
that proceedings are interfered with, then leave / liberty must be
sought, seeking to re-commence on the basis of the same charge
memo and proceed further. The second charge memo may be a
mirror image of the first charge memo but the authority to issue a
second charge memo, cannot be encouraged in service
jurisprudence except under authority of law. The authority to issue
a charge memo is a vested right that does not cloak the employer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
37/40
W.P.No.17266 of 2017
with the right to issue multiple charge memos. They can re-
commence the enquiry proceedings at the stage where it was
stopped or at the stage where it was interfered with. But they
cannot restart the entire proceedings once again by issuing a
second charge memo. On that ground, the relief sought in the writ
petition necessarily has to be granted.
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Union Bank Of India, Mumbai vs K.K. Salian And Anr. on 13 July, 2001
30.2 The second judgment relied on was Union Bank of
India, Mumbai v K.K.Salin [(2001) 4 LLN 226 Bombay]. The facts in
that case are also quite interesting. An employee of a Nationalized
Bank, namely Union Bank of India, went about promising his co-
employees that he would start a cooperative society and collected
funds for such cooperative society. It was stated that after
collecting such funds, he was not be able to refund the amounts to
the members when demanded. He actually did not have money in
the bank. He issued cheques, which were returned dishonoured.
Thereafter, it was found that the employee in that particular case,
the respondent before the Bombay High Court had conducted an
independent trade or business and that was violative of the Rules
guiding this employment. It was held in that particular case, that
the employer would have jurisdiction to initiate the disciplinary
proceedings. It was stated that the foundation of misconduct which
was committed bore sufficient nexus with the business or activity
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16/40
W.P.No.17266 of 2017
of the employer.