Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.39 seconds)
Mrs.P.Renuga Devi vs The Additional Director Of Police on 6 September, 2018 cites

Sate Of Punjab And Ors vs Chaman Lal Goyal on 31 January, 1995

Needless to say that the case of A.Subramani (supra), this Court taking into the fact that the criminal case was pending against the A.Subramani for last three years and the same was not finalised for which the promotion could not be taken up placing reliance in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal (supra), wherein pendency of a charge which is also disqualification for promoting a person, this Court directed temporary promotion of the A.Subramani.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 438 - B P Reddy - Full Document

(Smt.) Smita Pandurang Dalvi, Of Bombay ... vs Ratnakar Dattatraya Patade, Of Bombay, ... on 26 February, 2002

5. As it appears that the petitioner in this case has challenged the rejection of her representation made to promote her to the post of Inspector vide the order dated 16.02.2016 from the year 2014-2015. The petitioner was not qualified to come under the zone of consideration then. The petitioner had also admittedly disqualification to consider for promotion being indicted in a criminal case. However, during the course of hearing, the petitioner has sought for promotion temporarily notwithstanding her aforesaid disqualification placing reliance in the decision of this Court rendered in the case of A.Subramani (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1259 - C K Thakker - Full Document

R.Manohar vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 14 July, 2017

The same was also done taking note of the law laid down in the case of S.Saravanan(supra), wherein this Court taking into consideration the long pendency of the criminal case for more than twelve years to promote the petitioner, so also in the case of R.Monohar(supra) also similar orders were passed. But as it appears in all those cases considering the long pendency of the criminal cases, this Court had directed to accord the temporary promotion to the petitioner therein. However from the facts and situations it appears to this Court that when the petitioner made representation for consideration of his promotion notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal cases she was in normal course of thing not qualified to be included in the 'C' list bereft of his involvement in the criminal case. Hence, the representation made by the petitioner in this writ petition was rejected vide the impugned order. Such rejection being not suffers from any illegality, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition. According, the writ petition stands dismissed. But while parting with this case, the petitioner in the alternative had made the prayer to direct the respondent to consider her promotion from the year 2017-2018, this Court observe that since the petitioner has been indicted in a criminal offence which is trivial in nature and involves no moral turpitude notwithstanding the involvement of petitioner in a criminal case is a disqualification for according promotion, and this Court, in many occasions, had directed to consider promotion when the same has resulted in undue hardship to the public servant due to the dragging of the criminal case on account of docket explosion in criminal courts for which the accused persons had been compelled to run to the Court for years together with the Democles sword hanging on their head, it is hope and trust that the concerned respondent, if a representation is made for temporary promotion by the petitioner, shall consider the case of the petitioner in proper perspective, more particularly when the petitioner stated to have been involved in a trivial criminal offence under Section 323 of IPC, and the petitioner though otherwise qualified to be promoted but for pendency of the criminal proceeding, his case has been ignored and his juniors have been promoted. Such representation if made has to be disposed of, within a period of two months by the respondent concerned. However, the aforesaid should not be treated as a mandate of this Court to dispose of such representation in any particular manner.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - V Parthiban - Full Document
1