Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.51 seconds)
Prabhanjan Kumar Mishra vs M/O Finance on 21 September, 2018 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs B.V.Gopinath on 5 September, 2013

We have perused these case laws - In the 19 OA.26/2014 case of Union of India & others Vs. B.V. Gopinath in Civil Appeal No.7761/2013 with 7762-67/2013 decided on 05.09.2013, it has been emphasised that the Disciplinary Authority must approve all stages of the departmental enquiry i.e. approval to initiate the disciplinary enquiry, articles of charge-sheet, and any modification to the charges; and approving of charge-sheet cannot be delegated by the Disciplinary Authority to somebody else. 4(r).
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 278 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

P.V. Mahadevan vs M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 8 August, 2005

In another case i.e. P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D. T.N. Housing Board in Civil Appeal No.4901/2005 decided on 08.08.2005, it has been held by the Apex Court that inordinate delay of 10 years in initiating departmental enquiry and absence of convincing explanation for the delay, continuation 20 OA.26/2014 of departmental enquiry is prejudicial to the employee unless the employee himself/herself is responsible for the delay, and on this ground the departmental enquiry was quashed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 781 - Full Document

Prem Nath Bali vs Reg.,High Court Of Delhi & Anr on 16 December, 2015

In Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another in Civil Appeal No.958/2010 decided on 16.12.2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the departmental enquiry continued for 9 years and the applicant was kept under suspension for 9 years and 26 days but the departmental enquiry ought to have been completed in six months or at the most in one year. This decision also contains observations of the Court to the effect that departmental enquiry should be concluded in six months and in unavoidable cases within one year. 4(q).
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 200 - A M Sapre - Full Document

Delhi Jal Board vs Mahinder Singh on 1 September, 2000

In Delhi Jal Board Vs. Mahinder Singh in SLP(C)No.11726/2000 decided on 01.09.2000, it has been held that when the sealed cover procedure was adopted by the DPC and subsequently the concerned employee came to be exonerated but at that time another departmental enquiry was pending against him, pendency of subsequent or later departmental enquiry is not a bar to promotion as cleared by the D.P.C. 4(w). In absence of clear evidence on record in this case, we have not been able to ascertain for sure as to whether the applicant's case was processed by the Departmental Promotion Committee when the four persons claimed by the applicant to be junior to him were considered for promotion and were 21 OA.26/2014 promoted as Joint Commissioner in 2002 and later Additional Commissioner Grade was given to them in 2003.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 116 - Full Document
1