Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)State Of Maharashtra vs M.H. Mazumdar on 24 February, 1988
25. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, I hold that there is
no disentitlement of the employer-organization-respondent no.2 to
continue with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner/charged
official because the relevant provision being Section 4(6) of the Payment
of Gratuity Act, 1972 does not bring to an end an enquiry which is
commenced during the employment, and in fact, the said provision 4(6)
entitles commencing of an enquiry even after retirement of a charged
official, and which is also the ratio of M.H.Mazumdar (supra). I
therefore interpret the provision of Section 4(6) of the Payment of
Gratuity Act to entitle the employer-organization not only to continue a
departmental enquiry after superannuation of an employee but also to
commence departmental proceedings against the employee even after his
superannuation/retirement, subject to the fact that such proceedings are
not disciplinary proceedings but are enquiries/departmental proceedings
to determine the existence of conditions of Section 4(6) of the Payment
of Gratuity Act.
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Brahma Datt Sharma And Anr on 25 February, 1987
14. Specific reliance is placed on behalf of respondent no.2 upon
that portion of para-5 above which states that if disciplinary proceedings
against an employee of the government are initiated with respect to
misconduct committed by him during the period of service, and if such
employee retires from service on attaining age of superannuation but
before completion of the departmental proceedings, it is open to the
Government to direct deduction to be made from his pension on proof of
the allegations made against him. Reliance is also placed on the last few
lines of the said para which holds that it would be open to the
Government to take disciplinary proceedings against the government
servant in accordance with the rules for deduction from his pension and
gratuity. More importantly, it is argued by the respondents relying upon
the observations in Brahm Datt Sharma's case (supra) that
Disciplinary Authority if it accepts the report of the Enquiry Officer will
give a specific notice to the petitioner not only for challenging the
W.P.(C) No.7866 /2012 Page 6 of 24
enquiry report but also as to why gratuity of the petitioner should not be
forfeited in terms/in compliance with Section 4(6). It is argued that the
disciplinary proceedings will now in fact stand converted to
enquiry/departmental proceedings under Section 4(6) of the Payment of
Gratuity Act.
Walchandnagar Industries Limited vs Cement Corporation Of India Limited on 18 September, 2012
In
fact there is always a legal right to appropriate amounts already in
the hands of a person and which belongs to another person, if the
person holding/appropriating the same does it towards his
entitlement vide Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. Vs. Cement
Corporation of India, 2012 (2) ARBLR 19 (Delhi). The only
exception is if law or rules of the employer direct/require the
payment and thus disentitles appropriation/adjustment. As already
stated above, appropriation is actually adjustment in legal terms and
is part of the genre of equitable set off.
B. J. Shelat vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 28 March, 1978
In B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat and Ors, disciplinary
proceedings had been initiated against the Government Servant for
purpose of awarding punishment to him after he had retired from service.
The ratio of that decision is not applicable to the instant case as in the
present case the purpose of the enquiry was not to inflict any punishment;
instead the proceedings were initiated for determining the respondent's
pension. The proceedings were taken in accordance with Rules 188 and
189 of the Rules. It appears that the attention of the High Court was not
drawn to these Rules."
Prof. Marmar Mukhopadhyay vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 July, 2013
3. The issue therefore in the present case, in my opinion, is
squarely covered by my judgment in the case of Prof. Marmar
Mukhopadhyay (supra). Therefore, there is no bar on the respondent No.1-
bank in initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner even after
his superannuation. Of course, the proceedings which will be taken will be
to decide the issue of withholding or forfeiting any of the terminal benefits
of the petitioner.
Union Of India & Ors vs S.K.Kapoor on 16 March, 2011
The decision in
S.N.Narula case was binding on the subsequent Bench of equal
strength and hence, it could not take a contrary view as is settled by
a series of judgments of this Court."
Union Of India & Anr vs Raghubir Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc on 16 May, 1989
Further it is settled law
that judgment of a Division Bench of larger number of Judges will
prevail over the judgment of a lesser number of Judges of a Division
Bench of the Supreme Court as held in the Constitution Bench judgment
in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by
LRs. Etc. (1989) 2 SCC 754.
Shri D.P. Mahajan vs Punjab National Bank And Ors. on 10 February, 2004
7. The second ground which is urged by placing reliance upon the
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of D.B. Madan
(supra) is again without basis because the Division Bench only passed an
interim order to stay further proceedings and which was subject to final
decision in the writ petition. Interim orders do not create vested rights as
they are passed in the facts of a particular case.
M. Narasimhachar vs State Of Mysore on 12 October, 1959
In M. Narasimhachar v. The
State of Mysore : (1960)ILLJ798SC , and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm
Datt Sharma and Anr. : [1987]2SCR444 , similar Rules authorising the
Government to withhold or reduce the pension granted to the Government
servant were interpreted and this Court held that merely because a
Government servant retired from service on attaining the age of
W.P.(C) No.7866 /2012 Page 3 of 24
superannuation he could not escape the liability for misconduct and
negligence or financial irregularities which he may have committed
during the period of his service and the Government was entitled to
withhold or reduce the pension granted to a Government servant.