Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (2.07 seconds)
Mansukhbhai Bhalabhai Oza vs State Of Gujarat on 14 September, 2021 cites

Union Of India And Another vs Tulsiram Patel And Others on 11 July, 1985

18. The provisions of Rule 14 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1971 are analogous to provision of Article 311(2)(a)(b)(c) of the Constitution of India. The said provisions govern imposition of penalties specified under Rule 6. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Tulsiram Page 20 of 25 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 15 23:11:32 IST 2021 C/SCA/11569/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/09/2021 Patel (supra) has held that "It is in the nature of a constitutional prohibitory injunction restraining the disciplinary authority from holding an inquiry under Art. 311(2) or from giving any kind of opportunity to the concerned government servant". It is also directed by the Constitution Bench that where a disciplinary authority comes to know that a government servant has been convicted on a criminal charge, it must consider whether his conduct which has led to his conviction was such as warrants the imposition of a penalty and, if so, what that penalty should be. For that purpose, it will have to peruse the Judgement of the criminal court and consider all the facts and circumstances ex parte and by itself. Thus, there is no need of issuance of show cause notice to the government servant or provide any opportunity of hearing to him before imposing punishments of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank if he is convicted of serious offence. It is held that where the second proviso applies, though there is no prior opportunity to a government servant to defend himself against the charges made against him, he has the opportunity to question such action in an appeal, revision or review, as the case may be, that the penalty was too severe or excessive and not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case an further it is also held that if he fails in the departmental remedies and still 'wants to pursue the matter, he can Page 21 of 25 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 15 23:11:32 IST 2021 C/SCA/11569/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/09/2021 invoke the court's power of judicial review subject to the court permitting it. filed by him that the charges made against him are not true. On the same analogy, if a pensioner is convicted of serious offence; Rule 23(2) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, does not stipulate any issuance of show cause notice to him or her calling upon to show cause as to why his or her pension should not be withdrawn. The only requirement is the consultation with the Gujarat Public Service Commission under Rule 23(4) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, that too only for those posts which come under their purview. In case of a pensioner who is convicted of a serious offence, the provisions of Rule 23(2) of the GCSR,Pension Rules, 2002, only require about taking action under sub-rule 1 in "light of the judgement of the court relating to such conviction". There is no limitation prescribed under the Rules for taking action against an employee who is convicted for serious offence by the Criminal Court of first instance. The Rule also does not demand of issuance of show cause notice. Hence, if there is no requirement of issuance of show cause notice under the Rules, the question which arises for consideration is whether such 'notice' which is issued by the state government to the pensioner seeking his explanation for withdrawal of pension can be termed as "initiation of departmental proceedings"? Thus, the view expressed by the Page 22 of 25 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 15 23:11:32 IST 2021 C/SCA/11569/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/09/2021 coordinate bench requires a re-look. It is now a well-settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the court must give effect to the purport and object of the Act or statutory Rules. The intention of the Rule 23 and 24 is that an government servant who has been convicted of serious offence cannot be conferred with benefit of pension, as conferment of such benefit is subject to his or her good conduct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 138 - Cited by 1450 - D P Madon - Full Document

Amanullahkhan Bhurekhan Pathan vs State Of Gujarat on 9 January, 2017

In support of his case, learned Advocate Mr.J.P.Patel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 24 of Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 and the judgement dated 09.01.2017 rendered in Special Civil Application No.8452 of 2015 of the Co-ordinate Bench rendered in the case of Amanullakhan Bhrekhan Pathan vs State of Gujarat. He has submitted that the Coordinate Bench has set aside the order imposing cut in pension after threadbare examination of Rule 24 of the Pension Rules, 2002.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - S G Gokani - Full Document
1   2 Next