Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)
Ram Awatar Verma vs M/O Finance on 15 October, 2015 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs B.V.Gopinath on 5 September, 2013

14. The respondents filed their counter reply on 30.01.2015. It was submitted by them that no cause of action whatsoever has accrued to the applicant to file the present OA, as none of his statutory, fundamental or legal right has been infringed by any of the actions of the respondents. They had further taken the preliminary objection that the OA is barred by limitation, delay and laches, and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. It was submitted that the first Charge-Sheet issued to him on 06.11.2006 for DE proceedings had to be reviewed in view of the judgment dated 05.09.2013 of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. B.V. Gopinath & Ors., JT 2013 (12) SC 392 and, therefore, the relevant file was placed before the Disciplinary Authority, who had, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case, accorded his approval for the Charge Memorandum on 08.01.2014, and had also approved the 9 OA No-927/2014 continuation of the DE proceedings from the stage where they stood before the Charge Memorandum was so formally approved. It was, therefore, submitted that no infirmity was attached to the Charge-Sheet issued to the applicant for the DE proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 278 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Shri B.V. Gopinath vs Union Of India Through The Revenue ... on 5 February, 2009

15. It was submitted that in B.V. Gopinath vs. Union of India (supra) when the case was decided by this Tribunal on 05.02.2009 in OA No.800/2008, this Tribunal had granted liberty to the respondents for taking appropriate action to rectify the defects and issuance of Charge- Sheets in accordance with law. When that order of the Tribunal was upheld by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 05.09.2013, the Hon'ble Finance Minister had on 08.01.2014 approved for continuation of the DE proceedings from the stage at which those proceedings stood, and the charge sheet earlier issued on 06.11.2006 was treated as dropped. It was denied that the applicant was not facing any DE proceedings prior to 8th January, 2014. It was submitted that there was only a technical issue in the earlier charge sheet, which was rectified by getting the earlier charge sheet itself approved by the Hon'ble Finance Minister, as permitted by this Tribunal's order dated 05.02.2009, and after such approval, the new charge sheet was issued in its place. There was no change in its substance, and further directions had been obtained to continue the DE proceedings from the stage where the earlier DE had reached. It was, therefore, submitted that there is no merit in the OA, and it deserves to be dismissed.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Badrinath vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 29 September, 2000

In Badrinath v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243, this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle of consequential order which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 270 - M J Rao - Full Document
1   2 Next