Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)
Ramveer Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 5 May, 2021 cites

Rajendra Prasad Singh vs State Of U.P. on 10 December, 2020

Incidentally, in Rajendra Pratap Singh (supra), a decision towards which Mr. Sameer Sharma drew this Court's attention, it was held by this Court, in the context of the regulations, following a decision of the Supreme Court in Dev Prakash Tiwari v. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and others5 and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Banda District Cooperative Bank Limited and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others6, thus :
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Bhagirathi Jena vs Board Of Directors, O.S.F.G. And Ors on 31 March, 1999

On a pointed query of the Court, the learned counsel for the appellant candidly admitted that there was no provision under the U.P. Cooperative Service Regulation 1975, which may authorize continuance of the proceedings from the stage at which the defect has been noticed nor is there any provision in terms of which the proceedings may be continued and taken to their logical conclusion even after the retirement of the petitioner. We may in this connection refer to the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. & others4 as reiterated by the Supreme Court in Deo Prakash Tewari Vs. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board which clearly hold that once an employee has retired from service, in the absence of any authority vesting in the employer the right to continue disciplinary proceedings thereafter, the enquiry proceedings would be deemed to have lapsed and the employee would be entitled to all retiral benefits. In light of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court, we are unable to accede to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant for a remit of the proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 258 - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014

The other orders under challenge, that seek to effect recovery of emoluments paid in excess, that is to say, the orders dated 10.07.2015 and 08.07.2015, are all consequential orders. It is submitted by Mr. Sameer Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that the order dated 20.06.2015 has been passed without opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and behind his back. It is his case that the order aforesaid, being one adversely affecting the petitioner's rights, could not be made, without affording him reasonable opportunity of showing cause. It is particularly submitted by Mr. Sharma that the petitioner, being a Class-III employee, who had been paid his emoluments as determined by the Corporation, in terms of pay fixation made in his favour from time to time, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others7 would prevent the Corporation from recovering any emoluments paid in excess. So far as the question regarding the provision of opportunity is concerned, Mr. U.S. Singh Visen submits that the order dated 20.06.2015 only involved a correction to the mistaken pay fixation. It did not involve any punishment inflicted on the petitioner. As such, no opportunity of hearing was required.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

S.N. Mukherjee vs Union Of India on 28 August, 1990

13. This Court has considered the rival submissions. So far as the question of opportunity of hearing is concerned, the principle that any order that visits a person with adverse civil consequences, ought to be preceded by opportunity, is established beyond cavil. It is not the stigma of punishment, but the adversity of consequences to an individual, that attracts the obligation of a State or of its instrumentalities, to hear a person likely to be affected before decision. This principle has particularly been laid down in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India8. Thus, the submission advanced on behalf of the Corporation that the order dated 20.06.2015, being not one of punishment, but about the rectification of a mistake in the determination of the petitioner's emoluments, cannot be sustained. The aforesaid decision does have the serious civil consequences, adverse to the petitioner by reducing his emoluments. There is, however, one facet of the matter about this issue. The petitioner earlier came up before this Court through Writ - A No. 25039 of 2016, raising a grievance about the Corporation, unauthorisedly withholding his gratuity in the sum of Rs.3,30,790/-, for the petitioner thought that what was withheld was part of his gratuity; in fact, it was leave encashment dues, as already said. This Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Corporation to examine the petitioner's claim and decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order, within a specified period of time. The Regional Manager of the Corporation considered the petitioner's representation dated 02.06.2016, that was submitted to him, along with a copy of the order passed by this Court in Writ - A No. 25039 of 2016. While passing the order dated 27.08.2016, rejecting the petitioner's claim, the Regional Manager, in one sense, did hear the petitioner vis-à-vis the substantive order dated 20.06.2015, whereby his emoluments suffered a downward revision. A perusal of the said order shows that the petitioner was granted the first and the second selection grade and consequently, the third ACP, not because he had not put in a requisite number of years in service, but because he had to his credit, two orders dated 10.10.1993 and 21.07.1995, by which his annual increments for specified periods of time were stopped. These orders, which appear to be punishment orders, and regarding which there is no pleading before this Court, were not taken into account, when the first and the second selection grade was granted to the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, denial of opportunity would still be there, because the petitioner was not specifically confronted with the question that he had been granted the first and the second selection grade in error, ignoring the two increment stoppage order of limited duration passed against him. Till this adverse material was brought to the petitioner's notice, the order dated 27.08.2016 is a hollow reiteration of the order dated 15.06.2020, with no meaningful opportunity extended to the petitioner. The vice of denial of opportunity, therefore, continues to vitiate the order dated 27.08.2016, as much as it does the order dated 20.06.2015. Quite apart, this Court is of opinion that to revise a Class-III employee's emoluments downwards and prejudicial to him after retirement, on ground that at the time when he was awarded a particular selection grade, some minor punishment order/orders that disentitled him were not noticed, would be inequitable. It is here that the other limb of Mr. Sharma's submissions also becomes relevant, where it is urged that the employers in this case ought not to recover from the petitioner, a retired Class-III employee, on the principles laid down in Rafiq Masih.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 1274 - S C Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 Next