Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.36 seconds)
P. Suresh vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2022 cites

P.V. Mahadevan vs M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 8 August, 2005

In the above decision, this Court extensively referred to twenty decisions wherein the Court felt legally compelled to interfere with the disciplinary proceeding on the ground of delay also. The learned counsel further submitted that the Courts have consistently held that inordinate delay, in issuing charge memorandum or completion of disciplinary action would by itself constitute grave prejudice and the same would thus vitiate the very disciplinary proceedings initiated against Government servant. In this case, the charge against the petitioner is not one of serious irregularity or any act of misconduct touching upon corrupt practices, compelling the Government to take a serious view, despite lapse of considerable length of time. The charge against the petitioner is one of unauthorised absence from 9/8/1999 to 11/7/2000 and the fact would disclose that the absence of the petitioner was due to the respondents not allowing him to join back duty, after he obtained stay order from the Tribunal during the said period. In the said circumstances, the charges framed against the petitioner for the so called unauthorised absence is Page No:45/60 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35025 of 2019 liable to be interfered with.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 781 - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bani Singh And Another on 5 April, 1990

(i)In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and another reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 738, the Supreme Court had come down heavily against the laches on the part of the employer in conducting departmental enquiry and after finding out that there was no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay, held that it would be unfair to order departmental enquiry to proceed further.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 761 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Sate Of Punjab And Ors vs Chaman Lal Goyal on 31 January, 1995

As observed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Chaman Lal Goyal, 1995 (2) S.C.C. 570, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated after a lapse of considerable time. It would not be fair to the delinquent officer. Such delay also makes the task of proving the charges difficult and is thus not also in the interest of administration. Delayed initiation of proceedings is bound to give room for allegations of bias, mala fides and misuse of power. If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the Court may well interfere and quash the charges. Here, in our case, the petitioner has raised a plea that the delay is likely to cause prejudice to him in defending himself. If such plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances. I have already stated that the first charge states that the petitioner did not disburse cash from January, 1982 and, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, not even the period is mentioned clearly and like-wise, the statement that cash book was not maintained properly is a bald statement. Further, the nature of the charges relate to day-to-day activities of disbursement of cash and maintenance of registers, which are routine affairs, hence the unexplained delay of Page No:25/60 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35025 of 2019 15 years cannot be accepted. It would be impossible for the petitioner to remember the identity of witnesses whom he could summon to appear before the enquiring authority to support his case. Even If he could summon their presence, it would be a doubtful proposition whether they would be in a position to remember that happened more than 15 years back and help him in his defence. Further more, the petitioner may not be in a position to effectively cross- examine the witnesses to be examined on the side of the second respondent in support of the charges. Practically, it would be a doubtful proposition that either the prosecution witnesses or the defence witnesses would be in a position to remember the facts of the case and advance the case of either the department or the petitioner. Under these circumstances and on the facts and circumstances disclosed, I hold that the un-explained inordinate delay will constitute denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself that it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice and as such, the impugned charge memo must be struck down on this ground alone. By weighing all the factors both for and against the petitioner/delinquent officer quashing the charge memo is just and proper in the circumstances".
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 438 - B P Reddy - Full Document

C.P. Harish vs The Central Warehousing Corporation, ... on 31 August, 2000

(vi)In C.P.Harish Vs. The Central Warehousing, represented by its Managing Director, 4/1, Siri Institutional Area, New Delhi, reported in 2000 (IV) CTC 517, for the alleged lapses of the year 1982-1983, charge memos were issued on 20.06.1995 and 14.07.1998 respectively, nearly after 15 years. By observing that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated after lapse of considerable time, which would give room for allegations of bias, mala fides and misuse of power and that it would be impossible for the delinquent to remember and identify the witnesses, this Court has held that delay constitutes denial of reasonable opportunity to defend herself and it also violates the principles of natural justice and quashed the charges impugned in the above writ petition.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 14 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

P.V. Mahadevan vs The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu ... on 23 January, 2017

(vii)In A.Obaidullah Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai and another reported in 2005(5) CTC 380, a Division Bench of this Court, after considering the decisions in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. N.Radhakishan reported in 1998 (4) SCC 154 and P.V.Mahadevean Vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2005(4) CTC 403:2005 SCC (L&S) 861, quashed a disciplinary proceeding which was initiated after 12 years, holding that inordinate and Page No:27/60 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35025 of 2019 unexplained delay defeats justice.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 83 - Full Document

Union Of India vs The Central Administrative Tribunal on 6 March, 2019

(viii)In Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal reported in 2005 (2) CTC 169 (DB), this Court held that, "The delay remains totally unexplained. Therefore, we have no hesitation at all in concluding that the ground of inordinate delay in proceeding with the departmental enquiry as referred to above by us, would come in the way of the Govt., to continue with the enquiry any further.............."
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - M Venugopal - Full Document

R.Tirupathy vs The District Collector on 24 March, 2006

(xi)In yet another decision in R.Tirupathy and others v. the District Collector, Madurai District and others reported in 2006 (2) CTC 574, this Court was pleased to quash the charge memo, dated 02.02.2005 on the ground that the charges relate to purchase of uniforms during the year 1994- 95 and 1995-96 and the inordinate delay on the part of the department in issuing a charge memo was not properly explained.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 54 - P Jyothimani - Full Document
1   2 3 Next