Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)The State Of Punjab vs Barkat Ram on 30 August, 1961
Similarly, the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Khemi Ram's case, supra, does not have any direct bearing on the question that falls for consideration in this case. The Court was in that case dealing with a situation where the disciplinary proceedings could under rules be continued by the employer only by continuing the employee in service. The Government of Punjab had in exercise of that power issued an order of suspension of the employee, which could not be served upon the employee before the date of his superannuation. The question that fell for consideration was whether the issuance of an order of suspension implying his continuance in service would by itself be deemed to be a communication to the employee. The Court answered the question in the affirmative and held that since an order had been issued and despatched, it was deemed to have been communicated no matter the employee had not in fact received the same. The employee was therefore treated to have continued in service in accordance with the rules so as to entitle the employer to continue with the disciplinary proceedings even after his superannuation. That is however not the position in the instant case. The rule here is differently worded and without specifically requiring the employee to be continued in service entitles the employer to proceed with the enquiry initiated against him before his retirement.
D.V. Kapoor vs Union Of India And Ors on 7 August, 1990
In D.V. Kapoor v Union of India and Others, the employee had voluntarily resigned from service after the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him. The question raised was whether the proceedings could be continued and the amount of gratuity and pension forfeited on the basis of the findings recorded in the same. Their Lordships held that proceedings initiated against the employee during his service could bo continued and concluded by the authority in accordance with the rules, in the same manner, as could be done in the case of Government Servant in service. Findings recorded in such proceedings could even be made a basis for forfeiture of the amount of gratuity payable to the employee. The Court observed:--
THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
S. Subba Rao vs State Of Mysore By Its Chief Secretary ... on 31 July, 1962
Reliance by Sri Venkatachalaiah, upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in Subba Rao's, case, supra, is of no assistance to him. That was a case where the Court found that Rule 9(5)(b) of the Mysore Civil Service Rules which authorised retention for punishment in a pending disciplinary proceedings stood deleted. The Court was not in that case dealing with a situation, where the rule permitted the enquiry to be continued even after the employee had retired.
Gopalakrishna vs Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. on 16 June, 1995
It is indeed difficult to conceive of a situation where the enquiry is valid and yet it cannot result in any punishment against the petitioner no matter he is found to be guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. In other words, although there is no termination order in existence as on date, it is not possible to say that no such order can be validly issued even in future on the basis of the pending disciplinary proceedings. Since the employer has the right to make such an order, withholding of the gratuity pending finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings cannot be found fault with. An almost similar situation had arisen in B.L, Gopalakrishna v Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited, Bangalore , where the question that fell for consideration was whether Rule 19 of the Conduct Rules providing for withholding of gratuity until the conclusion of the domestic enquiry proceedings and issue of final orders was in conflict with Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act. Repelling the contention that any such withholding of the gratuity was illegal and contrary to Section 4, this Court observed thus:
D.K. Savitramma vs Anantapur District Co-Operative ... on 14 March, 1989
In D.K. Savitramma v Anantapur District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Anantapur and Another , the question that arose was whether disciplinary proceedings pending against an employee could be continued even after his death for purposes of forfeiture of the amount of
gratuity due to him. Repelling the contention that such proceedings could not be conducted and the amount forfeited, the Court observed:
1