Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (2.66 seconds)
Chaturbhai H Dhalwania vs State Of Gujarat on 14 December, 2021 cites

Kiritbhai Shankar Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 27 December, 2018

4. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the facts as noted hereinabove, there are two issues which arise for consideration before this Court, one is with regard to the delay in initiating and completion of the departmental proceedings and the second is with regard to the non-consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner to the final show cause notice dated 29.10.2012 issued to the petitioner. With regard to the aspect of delay, the Coordinate Bench in the case of Kiritbhai Shankar Patel (supra), after surveying various decisions of this Court, has held thus:-
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - N V Anjaria - Full Document

Anant R Kulkarni vs Y.P.Education Society & Ors on 26 April, 2013

5.1 In Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society [(2013) 6 SCC 515] the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 14 with regard to belated conduct of inquiry that whether the court would be inclined to quash the departmental proceedings on the ground of delay would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. It was observed that though ordinarily the court should not set aside the departmental inquiry or quashed the charges on the ground of delay in initiation in the proceedings, the test of prejudice caused by delay may be a overriding consideration. The court must weigh all the facts to finally make up its mind.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 262 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

M.V. Bijlani vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006

5.2 In M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India [(2006) 5 SCC 88] the issue of belated commencement of departmental inquiry was dealt with by the Apex Court. It was observed in the facts of the case that the High Court failed to take into consideration that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after six years and they continued for a period of seven years. It was stated that thus initiation of the disciplinary proceedings as also continuation thereof after such a long time evidently prejudiced the delinquent officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 837 - S B Sinha - Full Document

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

(Para 4) 5.4 In P.V. Mahadevan v. MD, T.N. Housing Board [(2005) 6 SCC 636] the Supreme Court considered the aspect of delay of 10 years in initiating the departmental inquiry against the appellant, where no convincing explanation was given for such delay. The Supreme Court took view that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings on such distance of time would be very prejudicial to the appellant. It was observed that the appellant already suffered enough on account of inordinate delay. 5.5 Quashing the charge memo issued against the appellant and putting the departmental inquiry to an end, the Supreme Court observed thus, "The respondent submitted that the irregularity during the year 1990, for which disciplinary action had been initiated against the appellant in the year 2000, came to light in the audit report for the second half of 1994-
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 781 - Full Document

Director (Marketing) Indian Oil Corpn. ... vs Santosh Kumar on 23 May, 2006

The word "consider", is of great significance. Its dictionary meaning of the same is, "to think over", "to regard as", or "deem to be". Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that, there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term "consider" postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority, should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself, should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority, and proceed to affirm its order. (Vide: Director, Marketing, Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Santosh Kumar, (2006) 11 SCC 147; and Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 1771).
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 130 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 14 March, 2008

The word "consider", is of great significance. Its dictionary meaning of the same is, "to think over", "to regard as", or "deem to be". Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that, there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term "consider" postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority, should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself, should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority, and proceed to affirm its order. (Vide: Director, Marketing, Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Santosh Kumar, (2006) 11 SCC 147; and Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 1771).
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 197 - B S Reddy - Full Document
1