Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.15 seconds)
Manojkumar Nemaji Shahare vs Zilla Parishad, Nagpur Through Chief ... on 22 December, 2018 cites

M/S Goa Shipyard Ltd vs Babu Thomas on 30 May, 2007

When the disciplinary authority i.e. the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent no.1 passed the order of penalty by impugned order dated 30.03.2015, under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, the petitioner could file appeal only before the respondent no.2 Divisional Commissioner i.e. the very appellate authority, who had issued memo of charges against him. This clearly shows that even in the facts of the present case, the right of appeal available to the petitioner was vitiated. It could not be said to ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 23:30:38 ::: 18 WP489-17.odt be cured because there was no further right of appeal available to the petitioner. As a result, in the facts of the present case, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 in the cases of Chairman, A.P. State Electricity Board .vs. M. Kurmi Naidu (supra ) and Goa Shipyard Ltd. .vs. Babu Thomas (supra), would not be applicable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 12 - H K Sema - Full Document

Chairman,A.P.State Electricity Board ... vs M.Kurmi Naidu on 13 September, 2006

When the disciplinary authority i.e. the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent no.1 passed the order of penalty by impugned order dated 30.03.2015, under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, the petitioner could file appeal only before the respondent no.2 Divisional Commissioner i.e. the very appellate authority, who had issued memo of charges against him. This clearly shows that even in the facts of the present case, the right of appeal available to the petitioner was vitiated. It could not be said to ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 23:30:38 ::: 18 WP489-17.odt be cured because there was no further right of appeal available to the petitioner. As a result, in the facts of the present case, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 in the cases of Chairman, A.P. State Electricity Board .vs. M. Kurmi Naidu (supra ) and Goa Shipyard Ltd. .vs. Babu Thomas (supra), would not be applicable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 13 - H K Sema - Full Document

Raghubir Singh vs Gen.Manager,Haryana Roadways,Hissar on 3 September, 2014

In the judgment in the case of Raghubir Singh .vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been found that the disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 against the employee therein were untenable in law because the said person was actually governed by the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Thus, it becomes apparent that the very initiation of enquiry in the present case was vitiated because it was initiated under a set of rules that were not applicable to the petitioner. The said fundamental defect in the very initiation of enquiry and issuance of memo of charges for alleged violation of rules that were not even applicable to the petitioner, cannot be cured by contending that the petitioner was required to show the prejudice suffered by him. The contention raised on behalf of the respondent no.1 is untenable that even if the very initiation of enquiry and issuance of memo of charges was for violation of a set of rules not applicable to the petitioner, no ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 23:30:38 ::: 15 WP489-17.odt fault could be found with the enquiry as the petitioner was required to demonstrate the prejudice suffered by him. Therefore, it becomes evident that the said contention raised on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be accepted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 315 - Full Document

Admin.Union Territory Of D.&N.Haveli vs Gulabhia M.Lad on 28 April, 2010

20. The Block Development Officer, being the drawing and disbursing officer, was the only employee who was responsible for distribution of funds to the Gram Panchayats and when there was material to show that he took the decision against the advice and note put up by the petitioner, it was only the Block Development Officer who could have been held responsible for such anomalous distribution of funds to Gram Panchayats. The judgment in the case of The Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli .vs. Gulabhai M. Lad (supra) sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, in fact, in this context, comes to the aid of the petitioner because it has been held in the said judgment that even in a joint enquiry against co-delinquents , the imposition of penalties/punishment could differ, depending upon the finding as to who could be held squarely responsible for the charges levelled against the delinquents. In the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner could not be held ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 23:30:38 ::: 22 WP489-17.odt jointly liable for the charges levelled against him and the Block Development Officer, because it was in fact the Block Development Officer who was entirely responsible for the anomalous distribution of funds to the Gram Panchayats. It has also come on record that appeal filed by the Block Development Officer was partly allowed and the penalties imposed against him, which were identical to those imposed against the petitioner, were modified to reduction of only one increment, without any future effect. The facts of the present case show that the respondent no.3 while passing the impugned order as the appellate authority of the petitioner, completely failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. Thus, it is found that on merits also, the impugned orders passed against the petitioner are unsustainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 138 - R M Lodha - Full Document

A. Sudhakar vs Post Master General, Hyderabad & Anr on 24 March, 2006

21. As regards the judgments in the case of Balbir Chand .vs. Food Corporation of India Ltd. and A. Sudhakar .vs. Postmaster General, Hyderabad (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, it is found that the judgment in the case of Balbir Chand (supra) pertains to the validity of holding a joint enquiry and the law laid down in the said case would not come to the aid of the ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 23:30:38 ::: 23 WP489-17.odt respondent no.1 because in the present case even if it was held that joint enquiry was justified, its initiation against the petitioner under the wrong set of rules could not be justified. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 could not place any authority to show that when joint enquiry is conducted against the two employees, who are covered by two different set of service rules, the service rules applicable to the senior of the two employees, would be applicable to both.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 54 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1