Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)

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

In the case of P. V. Mahadevan (supra) there was delay of 12 years in initiating disciplinary proceedings, upon which the charge memo itself was set aside. Here, the appointments made in the CBI were continued for long and even after a CBI report was submitted to the Court; the further action took another 14 years, i.e. commenced in 2016. With respect to the appeals first considered, it was again much later. We also have to observe that in the inquiry conducted, no witnesses were examined. The Patna High Court L.P.A No.1219 of 2023 dt.27-02-2024 35/39 CBI report relied on was also not marked and proved through an officer who conducted the investigation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 781 - Full Document

Prema Kumari & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 17 January, 2017

34. The petitioner, along with others who were terminated approached this Court in CWJC No. 15713 of 2016 (Prema Kumari & Anr Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors) which was allowed, with liberty left to proceed in accordance with law (Annexure-13). The judgment of the learned Single Judge, was also affirmed by a Division Bench as per Annexure-14. By Annexure-15 dated 20.02.2017 the petitioner was reinstated in Patna High Court L.P.A No.1219 of 2023 dt.27-02-2024 29/39 service. Annexure-16 also granted benefits of continuity of service to the petitioner and other similarly situated teachers. While she was so continuing in employment, memo of charges (Annexure-17) dated 18.01.2018 was issued again against her. The inquiry was concluded exonerating her of the charges by Annexure 22 dated 22.02.2019. She retired on 30.08.2019 and the PPO issued to her is marked as Annexure 24.
Patna High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - J Saran - Full Document
1