Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd vs Its Workmen on 31 March, 1964
This was followed by Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. vs.
Workmen 1964(7) SCR 555 = AIR 1965 SC 155, in which it was,
inter alia, laid down as under :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.62 seconds)The Delhi Cloth And General Mills Ltd vs Kushal Bhan on 10 March, 1959
"There is yet another point which remains to be
considered. The Industrial Tribunal appears to
have taken the view that since criminal
proceedings had been started against Raghavan, the
domestic enquiry should have been stayed pending
the final disposal of the said criminal
proceedings. As this Court has held in the Delhi
Cloth and General Mills Ltd. vs. Kushal Bhan, it
is desirable that if the incident giving rise to a
charge framed against a workman in a domestic
enquiry is being tried in a criminal court, the
employer should stay the domestic enquiry pending
the final disposal of the criminal case."
Jang Bahadur Singh vs Baij Nath Tiwari on 26 April, 1968
The question cropped up again with a new angle in Jang
Bahadur Singh vs. Baij Nath Tiwari 1969 (1) SCR 134 = AIR
1969 SC 30, as it was contended that initiation of
disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of a criminal
case on the same facts amounted to contempt of court. This
plea was rejected and the Court observed as under:
Nelson Motis vs Union Of India And Another on 2 September, 1992
" Then came the decision in Nelson Motis vs. Union of
India & Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 711 = 1992 Supp.(1) SCR 325 = AIR
1992 SC 1981, which laid down that the disciplinary
proceedings can be legally continued even where the employee
is acquitted in a criminal case as the nature and proof
required in a criminal case are different from those in the
departmental proceedings. Besides, the Court found that the
acts which led to the initiation of departmental proceedings
were not exactly the same which were the subject matter of
the criminal case. The question was not considered in
detail. The Court observed :
State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena & Others on 27 September, 1996
It only serves the interest of
the guilty and dishonest. While it is not
possible to enumerate the various factors, for and
against the stay of disciplinary proceedings, we
found it necesasry to emphasise some of the
important considerations in view of the fact that
very often the disciplinary proceedings are being
stayed for long periods pending criminal
proceedings. Stay of disciplinary proceedings
cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course.
All the relevant factors, for and against, should
be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view of
the various principles laid down in the decisions
referred to above."
Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State ... vs Mohd. Yousuf Miya Etc on 20 November, 1996
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal
case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and
law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature
of offence, the nature of the case launched against the
employee on the basis of evidence and material collected
against him during investigation or as reflected in the
charge sheet.
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 5 January, 1977
The order of suspension does not put an end to an
employee's service and he continues to be a member of the
service though he is not permitted to work and is paid only
Subsistence Allowance which is less than his salary. (See:
State of M.P. vs. State of Maharashtra, 1977 (2) SCR 555 =
(1977) 2 SCC 288 = AIR 1977 SC 1466).
O.P. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 September, 1987
Exercise of right to suspend an employee may be
justified on facts of a particular case. Instances,
however, are not rare where officers have been found to be
afflicted by "suspension syndrome" and the employees have
been found to be placed under suspension just for nothing.
It is their irritability rather than the employee's trivial
lapse which has often resulted in suspension. Suspension
notwithstanding, non-payment of Subsistence Allowance is an
inhuman act which has an unpropitious effect on the life of
an employee. When the employee is placed under suspension,
he is demobilised and the salary is also paid to him at a
reduced rate under the nick name of 'Subsistence Allowance',
so that the employee may sustain himself. This Court, in
O.P. Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 328
made the following observations with regard to Subsistence
Allowance :
Khem Chand vs The Union Of India And Others on 13 December, 1957
"An order of suspension of a government servant
does not put an end to his service under the
government. He continues to be a member of the
service in spite of the order of suspension. The
real effect of suspension as explained by this
Court in Khem Chand v. Union of India is that he
continues to be a member of the government service
but is not permitted to work and further during
the period of suspension he is paid only some
allowance -- generally called subsistence
allowance -- which is normally less than the
salary instead of the pay and allowances he would
have been entitled to if he had not been
suspended. There is no doubt that an order of
suspension, unless the departmental inquiry is
concluded within a reasonable time, affects a
government servant injuriously. The very
expression 'subsistence allowance' has an
undeniable penal significance. The dictionary
meaning of the word 'Subsist' as given in Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary, Vol.II at p. 2171 is
"to remain alive as on food; to continue to
exist". "Subsistence" means -- means of
supporting life, especially a minimum livelihood."
Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki vs Presiding Officer And Anr. on 8 May, 1986
This decision was followed in Fakirbhai
Fulabhai Solanki vs. Presiding Officer & Anr. (1986) 3 SCC
131 = 1986(2) SCR 1059 = AIR 1986 SC 1168 and it was held in
that case that if an employee could not attend the
departmental proceedings on account of financial
stringencies caused by non-payment of Subsistence Allowance,
and thereby could not undertake a journey away from his home
to attend the departmental proceedings, the order of
punishment, including the whole proceedings would stand
vitiated.