Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.42 seconds)
C. Pattabhirama Sastry vs Bank Of Baroda, Bombay And Others on 10 August, 1994 cites

M.D. Parmar vs Y.B. Zala And Anr. on 5 September, 1978

The petitioner did not make any grievance either before the Disciplinary Authority or before the Appellate Authority or before the Reviewing Authority in that regard. Since the petitioner has failed to take this plea at the earliest point of time in the course of Disciplinary proceedings, he cannot be permitted to make any grievance before this Court on the ground that the charge memo was issued after more than three years from the date of complained acts. Added to this, the petitioner did not lay any foundation in the affidavit filed before this Court to satisfy the Court that the petitioner suffered any prejudice or disadvantage due to the delay in issuing the charge memo. However, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of Gujarat High Court in M.D. Parmar v. Y.B. Zala and another, (1980) I LLJ 260, and the decision of the Madras High Court in R.Srinivasan v. Union of India and another, (1982) II LLJ 135, would maintain that three years delay in issuing the charge memo vitiates the disciplinary proceedings. The two decisions cited before the Court are distinguishable on facts.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

R. Srinivasan vs Union Of India And Anr. on 29 October, 1981

The petitioner did not make any grievance either before the Disciplinary Authority or before the Appellate Authority or before the Reviewing Authority in that regard. Since the petitioner has failed to take this plea at the earliest point of time in the course of Disciplinary proceedings, he cannot be permitted to make any grievance before this Court on the ground that the charge memo was issued after more than three years from the date of complained acts. Added to this, the petitioner did not lay any foundation in the affidavit filed before this Court to satisfy the Court that the petitioner suffered any prejudice or disadvantage due to the delay in issuing the charge memo. However, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of Gujarat High Court in M.D. Parmar v. Y.B. Zala and another, (1980) I LLJ 260, and the decision of the Madras High Court in R.Srinivasan v. Union of India and another, (1982) II LLJ 135, would maintain that three years delay in issuing the charge memo vitiates the disciplinary proceedings. The two decisions cited before the Court are distinguishable on facts.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1