Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
Shah Babu Education Society And Anr. vs Presiding Officer, School Tribunal ... on 9 August, 2006 cites

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy on 12 April, 1996

10. The next argument is to remand the matter back to employer. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in State of Punjab v. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy (supra). The perusal of that judgment reveals that the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that in matters where departmental enquiry is found to be vitiated, relief of reinstatement should not be granted straightway and proper course is to remit the matter back for fresh enquiry from the stage the fault or error is committed by the management and to treat the delinquent employee to be under deemed suspension during such enquiry. A perusal of said judgment leaves no manner of doubt that right of employer to continue with departmental enquiry after the employee has superannuated was not forming subject-matter of scrutiny there and therefore the issue is not considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 106 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Bhagirathi Jena vs Board Of Directors, O.S.F.G. And Ors on 31 March, 1999

11. The judgment on which learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has placed reliance i.e. Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. (supra) clearly considers this situation. It has been held that after retirement of employee, the departmental enquiry lapses if there is no specific provision for its continuation after retirement of such employee. In the facts of that case the departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant before the Hon'ble Apex Court under Regulation 44 of the Orissa Financial State Corporation Staff Regulations, 1975, and charge-sheet was served upon him on 22-7-1992. The enquiry could not be completed against him till his retirement which took place on 30-6-1995. He was relieved on 1-7-1995 by the employer Corporation by expressly noting that it was without prejudice to the claims of the Corporation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment has noted that there was no specific provision in said Regulation of 1975 for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in departmental enquiry there was no provision for continuance of departmental enquiry after superannuation. The Hon'ble Apex Court has, therefore, held that respondent - Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the appellant's retiral benefits. It has been held that after retirement of employee/appellant on superannuation, there was no authority vested in Corporation for continuing departmental enquiry even for the purposes of imposing any reduction in retiral benefits payable to the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 258 - Full Document

Ram Kumar Agarwal & Anr vs Thawar Das (Dead) Through Lrs on 20 August, 1999

12. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has invited attention to other judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Kumar Agarwal and Anr. v. Thawar Das (Dead) through LRs. (supra). He has contended that as mentioned and observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court therein, the right of employer in this respect must be deemed to have continued and protected because of pending matter. The perusal of said judgment clearly shows that there the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered right of appellant to prosecute his appeal under Civil Procedure Code though the decree was executed. It appears that though appeal was filed, the appellant could not succeed in getting stay orders and hence the decree holder executed decree and in this background the grievance has been examined. It is clear that the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered statutory right conferred by Sections 96 and 100 of Civil Procedure Code and has held that merely because the decree is executed, the said right is not taken away because the lis continued.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 42 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1