Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)
Ram Dia vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 13 January, 2016 cites

Kulwant Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab on 13 September, 1990

If the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is major penalty, then respondents were under legal obligation to hold the enquiry before imposing this punishment. The issue, in my view, is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, 1991(2) SCT 30 (SC) 9 has held that stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect falls within the meaning of 5(v) of the Punishment and Appeals Rules and would amount to major penalty and, thus, regular enquiry would be a must to impose this penalty. Without enquiry, no punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, as such, could be ordered. Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules clearly envisages the procedure to conduct an enquiry into the misconduct before ordering stoppage of increment with cumulative effect."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 247 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Smt.Tripta Kumari vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 12 July, 2011

This issue has come up for consideration before this Court in a case of Smt. Tripta Kumari vs. State of Haryana and another, 2012 (1) S.C.T 455 wherein the petitioner was punished with stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect without holding any enquiry under Rule 8 of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed. This Court allowed the writ petition and held that stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect would amount to major penalty and regular inquiry is must to impose such penalty. Punishment imposed on petitioner without holding any inquiry would be rendered illegal and voilative of the procedure established by law. In para 7, it has been observed as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - R Singh - Full Document

Mangal Singh vs Punjab & Haryana High Court on 30 October, 2013

Reference at this stage can further be made to a judgment of this Court in a case of Mangal Singh v. Punjab and Haryana High Court and others, 2014(1) S.C.T 492 wherein it was held that a major GAURAV ARORA 2016.01.28 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P No. 9904 of 1995 -9- penalty of dismissal could not have been imposed upon the petitioner without holding a regular departmental inquiry as the petitioner had specifically denied one charge and only admitted part of the other charge.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - T S Dhindsa - Full Document
1