Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)

Asit Biswas vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 April, 2023

10) Similarly, he has relied on another decision of the Hon'ble division bench of this court reported in 2007 (2) LLN 852 (Amit Biswas vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.), where the court has been pleased to hold that a government servant who is facing a criminal charge but released on bail, may not be suspended unless such criminal charges are related to his official duties or involves high moral turpitude on his part.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - J Bagchi - Full Document

Shri K. Jayaram vs Bangalore Development Authority Rep By ... on 8 December, 2021

28) Exercise of fraud by the petitioner and his coming to the court with unclean hands, has been another limb of submission, on behalf of the respondent authorities. In this regard, the provision under regulation 11(iv), may again be looked into, which has provided that an order of suspension shall not deemed to be or construed as punishment, for any purpose whatsoever, unless the guilt of the employee is proved by a duly constituted disciplinary proceeding. Thus, before the advent of a disciplinary proceeding against the writ petitioner, the respondents cannot be allowed to take a plea of the petitioner having committed misconduct or fraud and to act upon the same. The ratio decided in the judgment of K. Jayaram and Ors. (supra), would not come to the aid of the respondents, in this regard. The entire discussion as above would culminate into the sole and an inescapable conclusion that continuance of the operation of the suspension order dated September 15, 2022, against the writ petitioner any further, that too, without initiation of any disciplinary proceeding, would be in utter violation of rules, regulations and settled law in this regard.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 64 - S A Nazeer - Full Document

O.P. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 September, 1987

"8. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, however, has rightly relied on a series of judgments of this Court, including O.P. Gupta v. Union of India [(1987) 4 SCC 328 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 400 : (1987) 5 ATC 14] , where this Court has enunciated that the suspension of an employee is injurious to his interests and must not be continued for an unreasonably long period; that, therefore, an order of suspension should not be lightly passed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 294 - A P Sen - Full Document

K. Sukhendar Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. on 5 April, 1999

9. Our attention has also been drawn to K. Sukhendar Reddy v. State of A.P. [(1999) 6 SCC 257 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1088] , which is topical in that it castigates selective suspension perpetuated indefinitely in circumstances where other involved persons had not been subjected to any scrutiny. Reliance on this decision is in the backdrop of the admitted facts that all the persons who have been privy to the making of the office notes have not been proceeded against departmentally.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 86 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Dipak Mali on 15 December, 2009

However, the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dipak Mali [(2010) 2 SCC 222 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 593] does not come to the succour of the appellant since our inspection of the records produced in original have established that firstly, the decision to continue the suspension was carried out within the then prevailing period and secondly, that it was duly supported by elaborate reasoning."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 132 - A Kabir - Full Document
1