Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)
R.N. Chaturvedi S/O Late Sri Roop Kishor ... vs The State Of U.P. Through The Secretary, ... on 30 March, 2007 cites

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

In State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal , state of Punjab was aggrieved by the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashing memo of charges against Goyal and also the order appointing Inquiry Officer to inquire into those charges. In this case the incident, which was the subject matter of charge, happened in December, 1986 and in early January, 1987, when Goyal was working as Supdt. of Nabha High Security Jail. It was only on July 9, 1992 that Memo of charges was issued to Goyal. He submitted his explanation on Janury 4, 1993 denying the charges. Inquiry Officer was appointed on July 20, 1993 and soon thereafter Goyal filed writ petition in the High Court on August 24, 1993. The High Court quashed the memo of charges on the principal ground of delay of five and a half years in serving the memo of charges for which there was no acceptable explanation. This Court examined the factual position as to how the delay occurred and if Goyal had been prejudiced in any way on account of delay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 438 - B P Reddy - Full Document

A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 29 April, 1988

18. Although from the aforesaid discussion it is clear that the aforesaid principles have been enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court in context of disciplinary proceedings either initiated after long lapse of time from the date of incidents or unduly prolonging without any justification therefore, whereas the case in question does not involve initiation of any fresh disciplinary inquiry, rather herein the Court is concern about the feasibility of holding fresh disciplinary inquiry de-novo, from the stage from which it was found faulty on account of quashing of faulty disciplinary proceedings and pursuant disciplinary action taken against the petitioner, thus the instant case is distinguishable on facts but from the perusal of observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in para 18 of the decision in N. Radha Krishnan's case (supra) it appears that the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken note of earlier decision rendered in State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has relied on the principle laid down in the case of A.R. Antule v. R.S. Nayak , which was a case pertaining to criminal prosecution and has imported the principle applicable therein to the plea of delay in taking disciplinary proceedings as well, therefore, I do not find any justification to ignore the aforesaid broad principle which can be imported and applied equally in given facts and circumstances of the instant case as well.
Supreme Court of India Cites 153 - Cited by 1309 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Radhey Kant Khare vs U.P. Co-Operative Sugar Factories ... on 19 November, 2002

23. From the above facts it appears to us that an illegal procedure was followed by the enquiry officer inasmuch as on 12.6.1985 he called the petitioner for giving his statement without first examining the witnesses against the petitioner in his presence. As mentioned in the decisions already referred to above, ordinarily the witnesses against the charge-sheeted employee must be examined first in his presence and it is illegal to straightway ask the employee to lead his evidence first. This procedure itself is violative of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, it appears from the above facts that no witness against the petitioner was examined in his presence nor was he given opportunity of cross-examining them. All that was done that the petitioner was called on 12.10.1985 to give his statement. It is also evident that the report of Najib Ahmad dated 30.1.1985 was not supplied to the petitioner, which also violates the principles of natural justice.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 92 - M Katju - Full Document

State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996

In this connection it would be useful to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, in State Bank of Patiala and Anr. v. S.K. Sharma , wherein while considering the impact and effect of non-observance or infraction of various facets of principles of natural justice and statutory rules of disciplinary inquiry, the Hon'ble Apex Court has recorded its concluded opinion in para 32 of the decision as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 1234 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993

13. Now further question arises for consideration in given facts and circumstances of the case, what relief can be given to the petitioner In this connection, it is pointed out that this court is conscious about the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Managing Director, E.C.I.L. v. B. Karunakar and Ors. , wherein it has been held that where the disciplinary inquiry is found faulty, afresh inquiry should be directed from the stage it was found faulty after setting aside the order of punishment and reinstating the employee for limited purpose of holding fresh inquiry but there is another line of cases decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, where the charges are old and stale and pendency of disciplinary inquiry for unduly long time was found against the interest of administration and prejudicial to the interest of delinquent employee, in such a situation appropriate relief had been given to the employees either by quashing the charge memo or by making appropriate direction in the matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs N. Radhakishan on 7 April, 1998

18. Although from the aforesaid discussion it is clear that the aforesaid principles have been enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court in context of disciplinary proceedings either initiated after long lapse of time from the date of incidents or unduly prolonging without any justification therefore, whereas the case in question does not involve initiation of any fresh disciplinary inquiry, rather herein the Court is concern about the feasibility of holding fresh disciplinary inquiry de-novo, from the stage from which it was found faulty on account of quashing of faulty disciplinary proceedings and pursuant disciplinary action taken against the petitioner, thus the instant case is distinguishable on facts but from the perusal of observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in para 18 of the decision in N. Radha Krishnan's case (supra) it appears that the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken note of earlier decision rendered in State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has relied on the principle laid down in the case of A.R. Antule v. R.S. Nayak , which was a case pertaining to criminal prosecution and has imported the principle applicable therein to the plea of delay in taking disciplinary proceedings as well, therefore, I do not find any justification to ignore the aforesaid broad principle which can be imported and applied equally in given facts and circumstances of the instant case as well.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 511 - Full Document

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

In P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board 2005 (106) F.L.R., 1003 : (2005) 6 S.C.C., 636 the disciplinary inquiry initiated after 10 years of the incident without convincing explanation for delay in inquiry in circumstances of the case Hon'ble Apex Court has held that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time would be prejudicial to the appellant. The appellant has already suffered enough and more on account of disciplinary proceedings hence charge memo issued against him was quashed and departmental inquiry has been put up to an end. For ready reference the observation made in para 15 of the decision is extracted as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 781 - Full Document

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

In M.B. Bijlani v. Union of India and Ors. , the delay in initiation of disciplinary proceeding after 6 years of incident and continuance thereof for further period of 7 years was found prejudicial to the delinquent officer. In aforesaid situation after quashing the order of punishment, since it was an old matter of 36 years by that time, therefore, it was found not proper to remit the matter for holding fresh inquiry, Hon'ble Apex Court has directed the reinstatement of employee along with 50% back wages if the employee had not reached the age of superannuation. The pertinent observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paras 16 and 28 of the decision are extracted as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 837 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next