Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.62 seconds)

Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union Of India Thr Its Secretary & Anr on 16 February, 2015

8. The primordial contention of the Petitioner, as canvassed by learned counsel, is that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), if the charge sheet is not issued within a period of 90 days from the date of suspension, the suspension would automatically lapse. There is no quarrel with the proposition that even though suspension is not a specified penalty but it does affect an employee and prolonged and indefinite suspension causes injury and prejudice and therefore, Courts have repeatedly asserted that disciplinary proceedings, if initiated, must be concluded within a reasonable time and an employee should not be indefinitely suspended. Prolonged suspension does become punitive in nature, more so when it is for an unjustified reason. However, it cannot be overlooked that the employer has a right to suspend an employee to refrain him from perpetuating the alleged misconduct and/or destroying the evidence. Each case, therefore, turns on its own facts and circumstances and no hard and fast rule can be laid down that only because chargesheet has not been issued within 90 days of initial suspension period or even during extended suspension period for a justified reason, the suspension period would automatically lapse.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 2060 - V Sen - Full Document

P.Kannan vs The Commissioner For Municipal ... on 5 February, 2014

In P. Kannan (supra), a three-judge Bench of the Madras High Court answered the reference by holding that judgement of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) does not lay down an absolute proposition of law that an order of suspension cannot be continued beyond a period of three months, if chargesheet is not served within the said period and that issue of challenge to the suspension order should be analysed on the facts of each case.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 105 - Full Document

Kailash vs Nanhku & Ors on 6 April, 2005

In Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480 : AIR 2005 SC 2441, while examining the issue : whether the obligation cast on the defendant to file the written statement to the plaint under Rule (1) of Order 8 CPC within the specified time was directory or mandatory i.e. whether the Court could extend the time for filing of the written statement beyond the period specified in Rule 1 of Order 8, the Supreme Court held that the Court had the power to extend the time for filing of the written statement, since there was no consequence prescribed flowing from non-extension of time. In para 29 of this decision, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 997 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Pawan Kumar And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 11 January, 2023

12. The observations made by the Tribunal in para 14 of the impugned order referring to P. Kannan v. Municipal Corpn., Salem [P. Kannan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 7266/2024 Page 11 of 16 Signing Date:17.11.2024 09:54:30 v. Municipal Corpn., Salem, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 1154] which considered the ratio in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India [Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 455] are also relevant and may be beneficially reproduced: (Vikash Kumar case [Vikash Kumar v. Union of India (I), 2022 SCC OnLine CAT 2097] , SCC OnLine CAT para 14) "14.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 4 - S K Kait - Full Document

Shobha Choudhary vs Raipur Development Authority 82 ... on 9 January, 2019

12. The observations made by the Tribunal in para 14 of the impugned order referring to P. Kannan v. Municipal Corpn., Salem [P. Kannan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 7266/2024 Page 11 of 16 Signing Date:17.11.2024 09:54:30 v. Municipal Corpn., Salem, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 1154] which considered the ratio in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India [Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 455] are also relevant and may be beneficially reproduced: (Vikash Kumar case [Vikash Kumar v. Union of India (I), 2022 SCC OnLine CAT 2097] , SCC OnLine CAT para 14) "14.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 Next