Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.48 seconds)Surinder Kumar Malhi And Anr. vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 23 October, 1984
Following the decision in Shri Surinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 1985 (3) SLR 254, the Calcutta High Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents therein to release the gratuity to the petitioner therein with interest, as per Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. The repsondents therein were further directed to open the sealed cover and in case, the name of the petitioner therein has been recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger, necessary consequential orders, be passed.
The State Of Haryana vs Banwari Lal on 7 February, 1992
In State of Haryana v. Banwari Lal reported in 2010 SCC Online P & H 183, a Hon'ble Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, on the very same issue, at Paragraphs 6 and 7, held as follows:
R.C.Dubey vs M.P.State Electricity Board on 1 February, 2013
In R.C.Dubey v. M.P.State Electricity Board reported in 2013 SCC Online MP 1004, the petitioner therein was granted the benefit of First Higher Pay Scale, by order, dated 23.8.1990, in the post of Junior Engineer. He was entiteld to Second Higher Pay Scale, which was not granted, because of the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, by Lokayukt, which led to suspension. On 12.12.2000, the petitioner therein was acquitted. Thereafter, he was reinstated on 3.1.2001. As his request for grant of higher pay scale, was not considered, he preferred a Writ Petition, which was disposed of, on 8.3.2006, with a direction to the respondent therein to consider his claim. Subsequently, the Department rejected his claim, stating that the prosecution has filed a Criminal appeal, against acquittal and therefore, recommendations were given in a sealed cover. Selection Committee also approved that the recommendations, in respect of the second higher scale, would be considered, only after the outcome of the said Criminal Appeal. Contention of the petitioner therein was that having been acquitted, criminal case cannot be said to be pending merely because an appeal is directed against the acquittal order. He also prayed that the respondents therein be directed to open the sealed cover and extend the benefit of second higher pay scale to him. After considering the definition of the expression "judicial proceeding" "includes any proceeding in the course of which evidence is ormay be legally taken on oath."
Balak Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 23 January, 2014
In Balak Singh Thakur v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2014 SCC Online MP 1036, the claim of the petitioner therein for settlement of wages of suspension period, was rejected on the ground that against the order of acquittal recorded in a case, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, an appeal has been preferred in the High Court. Before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, it was contended that having been acquitted in a criminal case, pendency of criminal appeal, cannot be put against the claim of the petitioner therein for wages. The respondents therein contended that since an appeal was preferred against the acquittal, the petitioner therein was still under the cloud and hence, not entitled to finalisation of suspension period. Considering the said contentions, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that objections of the respondents were not unjustified.
Garikapatti Veeraya vs N. Subbiah Choudhury on 1 February, 1957
21. Though by placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Garikapti Veeraya v. N.Subbiah Choudhry reported in AIR 1957 SC 540, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 contended that appeal is a continuation of the proceedings and that Vigilance has not given a clearance to the case of the petitoiner, this Court is not inclined to accept the same. In the light of the discussion and decisions, stated supra, merely because the appeal is pending, it is not open to the respondents 2 and 3, not to regularise the period as duty. It has to be regularised.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State And Anr. vs B.C. Dwivedi on 7 April, 1983
"The preferment of acquittal appeals cannot howervr, be regarded as the continuance of the trial. The trials have concluded with judgment of acquittal. (See State v. B.C.Dwivedi, 1983 (2) XXIV GLR 1315). The initial presumption of innocence must, therefore, be regarded as having been doubly reinforced by orders of acquittal passed in favour of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the continued operation of the order of suspension as from the date of acquittal cannot be regarded as reasonable, fair and just.......... If the acquittal appears are allowed and the petitioner is convicted, there is nothing to prevent the competent authority from dealing with the petitioner in accordance with law. If, on the other hand, the acquttal appears fail and a departmental inquiry, if any, is ordered to be instituted on the same charges, it would not be fair and just reasonable to suspend the petitioner once against in view of the intial presumption of innocence having been reinforced twice over."
State Of West Bengal vs Hari Ramalu on 3 March, 2004
In State of West Bengal v. Hari Ramalu reported in 2000 (3) LLN 638, the respondent therein was placed under suspension on 09.09.1994. FIR was registered on 28.08.1994. The question posed before the Hon'ble Division Bench, was that in view of the pendency of the appeal, whether sub-rule (3) of rule of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, would still be applicable. The said rule states that a member of the service in respect of, or against, whom an investigation, inquiry or trial, relating to a criminal charge is pending may, at the discretion of the Government be placed under suspension until the termination of all proceedings relating to that charge if the charge is connected with his position as a member of the Service or is likely embarass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude. Defining the words "inquiry" and "investigation, under Sections 2(g) and 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and considering Rule 3 of abovesaid Rules, a Hon'ble Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, at Paragraph 10, held as follows: