Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.25 seconds)

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

This is evident from bare reading of Rule 13(2) of the Rules. If interpretation canvassed by counsel for the applicant that only the disciplinary authority competent to impose major penalty is the competent authority to issue charge-sheet as well, is accepted, then Rule 13(2) of the Rules would become redundant. No such interpretation can be accepted. Judgment in the case of B.V. Gopinath (supra) does not help the applicant in the instant case. This judgment simply lays down that when decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings for major penalty is taken by the Disciplinary Authority competent to impose major penalty on the delinquent, then charge-sheet also has to be approved by the same Disciplinary Authority. In the instant case, decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings for major penalty against the applicant was taken by respondent no. 5 and not by respondent no. 3. Consequently, approval of respondent no. 3 for the impugned charge-sheets was also not required in view of Rule 13(2) of the Rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 278 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Secretary To Government,Prohibition & ... vs L. Srinivasan on 15 February, 1996

Obviously said acts might have been detected after lapse of some period and not immediately. The charges in both the charge-sheets are of serious nature. Consequently, the same cannot be quashed merely on the ground of alleged delay. Even otherwise, charge-sheet should not be quashed at the threshold merely on the ground of delay as held by Honble Supreme Court in the case of L. Srinivasan (supra). In that case, the Tribunal had quashed the charge-sheet on the ground of delay. The Honble Supreme Court passed severe strictures against the Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 234 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1