Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.38 seconds)
Ashok Kumar Singh Bhadoriya vs State Of Chhattisgarh cites

R.P. Kapur vs Union Of India And Anr on 19 November, 1963

(10) Following the decisions in the matters of R.P. Kapur V. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787; Balvantrai Ratilal Patel V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 800; V.P. Gidroniya Vs. State of M.P. (1970) 1 SCC 362; U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad -vs- Sanjiv Rajan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 483, the Apex Court in the matter of State of Orissa through its Principal Secretary, Home Dept. -vs- Bimal Kumar Mohanty (1994) 4 SCC 126 held that "Normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for investigation or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or; inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge."
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 374 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Balvantray Ratilal Patel vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 December, 1967

(10) Following the decisions in the matters of R.P. Kapur V. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787; Balvantrai Ratilal Patel V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 800; V.P. Gidroniya Vs. State of M.P. (1970) 1 SCC 362; U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad -vs- Sanjiv Rajan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 483, the Apex Court in the matter of State of Orissa through its Principal Secretary, Home Dept. -vs- Bimal Kumar Mohanty (1994) 4 SCC 126 held that "Normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for investigation or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or; inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 80 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

V. P. Gindroniya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 29 January, 1970

(10) Following the decisions in the matters of R.P. Kapur V. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787; Balvantrai Ratilal Patel V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 800; V.P. Gidroniya Vs. State of M.P. (1970) 1 SCC 362; U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad -vs- Sanjiv Rajan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 483, the Apex Court in the matter of State of Orissa through its Principal Secretary, Home Dept. -vs- Bimal Kumar Mohanty (1994) 4 SCC 126 held that "Normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for investigation or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or; inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 82 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1