Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.60 seconds)Section 11 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Union Of India And Others vs Mohammed Ahmed Ibrahim And Others on 4 December, 1991
26) In support of the contention of the petitioners, Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC placed the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Md. Ibrahim reported
in (2004) SCC (L&S) Page-863; V. Padmanabham Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Other
reported in (2010) II SCC (L&S) Page-187; Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and
Others reported in (2013) SCC (L&S) Page-593 and The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
Faizabad Vs. Sachindra Nath Pandey and Others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 134; Ms. Sarma,
learned CGC stated that in those judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that whenever
the charges are serious and relates to integrity of an officer, the delay should not be a ground for
quashing the chargesheet/disciplinary proceeding.
V. Padmanabham vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors on 27 July, 2009
26) In support of the contention of the petitioners, Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC placed the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Md. Ibrahim reported
in (2004) SCC (L&S) Page-863; V. Padmanabham Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Other
reported in (2010) II SCC (L&S) Page-187; Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and
Others reported in (2013) SCC (L&S) Page-593 and The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
Faizabad Vs. Sachindra Nath Pandey and Others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 134; Ms. Sarma,
learned CGC stated that in those judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that whenever
the charges are serious and relates to integrity of an officer, the delay should not be a ground for
quashing the chargesheet/disciplinary proceeding.
Anant R Kulkarni vs Y.P.Education Society & Ors on 26 April, 2013
26) In support of the contention of the petitioners, Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC placed the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Md. Ibrahim reported
in (2004) SCC (L&S) Page-863; V. Padmanabham Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Other
reported in (2010) II SCC (L&S) Page-187; Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and
Others reported in (2013) SCC (L&S) Page-593 and The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
Faizabad Vs. Sachindra Nath Pandey and Others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 134; Ms. Sarma,
learned CGC stated that in those judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that whenever
the charges are serious and relates to integrity of an officer, the delay should not be a ground for
quashing the chargesheet/disciplinary proceeding.
The Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative ... vs Sachindra Nath Pandey & Ors on 21 February, 1995
26) In support of the contention of the petitioners, Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC placed the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Md. Ibrahim reported
in (2004) SCC (L&S) Page-863; V. Padmanabham Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Other
reported in (2010) II SCC (L&S) Page-187; Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and
Others reported in (2013) SCC (L&S) Page-593 and The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
Faizabad Vs. Sachindra Nath Pandey and Others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 134; Ms. Sarma,
learned CGC stated that in those judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that whenever
the charges are serious and relates to integrity of an officer, the delay should not be a ground for
quashing the chargesheet/disciplinary proceeding.
Sate Of Punjab And Ors vs Chaman Lal Goyal on 31 January, 1995
27) Ms. Sarma, learned CGCplacing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal reported in (1995) 2 SCC 570 stated that mere
delay cannot be ground for quashing the chargesheet and each case for quashing of charge sheet
on the ground of delay has to be considered in its own merit.
P.V. Mahadevan vs M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 8 August, 2005
But where the alleged misconduct was known and there was no
investigation pending and when no explanation is forthcoming in regard to the delay, necessarily
the unexplained delay would cause serious prejudice to the employee and therefore, enquiry will
have to be quashed (State of A.P. Vs. N. Radhakrishnan 1998 4 SCC 154; P.V. Mahadevan Vs.
Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board 2005 6 SCC 636)
Ranjeet Singh And Ors Etc Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors Etc Etc on 2 January, 2017
30) In the case of Ranjeet Sing Vs. State of Haryana and Others in C.A. No. 1491/2006
decided on 30.06.2008 reported in (2008) 0 Supreme SC 2197 the Hon'ble Supreme Court have
held that ― inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings is a ground for quashing the
enquiry unless the employer satisfactorily explains the delay. For example where the matter is
referred to CBI for investigation and there is delay in getting its report or where the charge is of
misappropriation and the facts leading to misappropriation come to light belatedly, it can be said
that the delay is not fatal.
1