Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.64 seconds)
Smt. Durgesh Nandini & Anr vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 19 September, 2016 cites

State Of Gujarat vs Umedbhai M. Patel on 27 February, 2001

15. The contention of the respondents in respect of the pendency of the chargehsheets, is unacceptable. Once, the penalty in respect of Chargesheet dated 01.04.1995 was set aside by the Tribunal in OA No.497/1998 on 07.12.2000, and that no fresh penalty order, as per the liberty granted by the Tribunal, was passed, as rightly submitted by the applicant's counsel the said Chargesheet cannot be said to be pending. Similarly, even as per the respondents themselves, no penalty order was passed in respect of the Chargesheet dated 30.11.2005 and the proposal of a penalty made in Minutes of a Committee cannot be said that a final order is passed and the Chargesheet is not pending. However, it is to be seen whether the pendency of Chargesheets/ Disciplinary Proceedings as on the date of the impugned compulsory retirement order issued under 1958 Rules, ipso facto, can make it void, in view of Annexure A2 DoPT letter dated 27.05.2009. The relevant para of the DoP&T letter dated 27.05.2009 (Annexure A/2) which was issued mainly to bring to notice of all the concerned about the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umedbhai M. Patel case (supra), reads as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 276 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Pyare Mohan Lal vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 10 September, 2010

25. Having taken note of the correct principles which need to be applied, we can safely conclude that the order of the High Court based solely on the judgment in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra was not correct. The High Court could not have set aside the order merely on the ground that service record pertaining to the period 1978-90 being old and stale could not be taken into consideration at all. As per the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that entire service record is relevant for deciding as to whether the government servant needs to be eased out prematurely. Of course, at the same time, subsequent record is also relevant, and immediate past record, preceding the date on which decision is to be taken would be of more value, qualitatively. What is to be examined is the "overall performance" on the basis of "entire service record"
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 157 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Rajesh Gupta vs State Of J&K & Ors on 23 January, 2013

In K. Lal (supra), wherein the applicant also an IAS Officer and who was compulsorily retired under Rule 16(3) of the 1958 Rules ibid, a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal observing that the procedure adopted for retiring the applicant therein, was nothing more than a short cut to get around the proceedings initiated, which have taken quite some time, till showing no signs of completion, though there is nothing on record to show that the delay in any way was caused by the applicant, allowed the OA.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 8 - A R Dave - Full Document

Rajasthan State Road Tranp. Corp. & Ors vs Babu Lal Jangir on 16 September, 2013

18. The respondents while denying the said contentions would submit that in ACR for the period from 4/04 (April, 2004) to 10/2004 (October, 2004) the Reporting Authority had recorded that "I am unable to certify his integrity and this should be separately investigated by appropriate authorities". and hence, it cannot be said that there is nothing adverse with regard to his integrity. While relying on Babu Lal Jangir (supra), they contend that the "washed off" theory, i.e., on promotion the adverse entries prior thereto would have no relevance, will have no application, when a case of an employee is being assessed to determine whether he is fit to be retained in service or requires to be given compulsory retirement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 107 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 Next