Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (0.52 seconds)
V.Saravanan vs The Commissioner Of Municipal ... on 24 March, 2022 cites

Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union Of India Thr Its Secretary & Anr on 16 February, 2015

7. This Court is in agreement with the submissions made on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 56 W.P.No.40923 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.11225 of 2020 behalf of the petitioner. Although the Government has distinguished between non-vigilance and vigilance cases in respect of the application of the ratio laid down by the Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case, nonetheless, there are number of decisions which uniformly held that the prolonged suspension even otherwise cannot be countenanced in law. In this case, the criminal case registered against the petitioner is at the FIR stage, even as on date. The respondents have also not thought fit to initiate disciplinary action in respect of the allegation of corruption against the petitioner. That being the case, keeping the petitioner under suspension for more than 6 years, cannot be justified at all, under any circumstances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 2060 - V Sen - Full Document

M.Murugan vs The Deputy Inspector General Of Police on 23 January, 2017

9. In the overall consideration of the above scenario, the Courts have started interfering with the prolonged suspension when it found that there was no progress in the criminal case or in departmental proceedings. If there are compelling reasons and periodical review of the prolonged suspension, reflecting proper application of mind, for instance, the employee concerned is entirely responsible for the delay in completion of the criminal trial or the departmental proceedings, in that event, the Court cannot be justified in interfering with the suspension merely on the ground, the suspension being prolonged. The reliance placed in the letter dated 23.07.2015, is not a valid ground for prolonging the suspension, as the same letter was also the subject matter of consideration by the Division Bench in its decision (W.A (MD) No.100 of 2017 dated 13.02.2017, in the case of M.Murugan Vs. The Deputy Inspector https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 58 W.P.No.40923 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.11225 of 2020 General of Police) and recently by a learned Single Judge in a decision dated 09.09.2021, in W.P.No.19037 of 2021, in the case of D.Lakshmi Narayanan Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government. Both the decisions have been cited supra. In the circumstances cliched citing of pendency of criminal case, without adverting to the surrounding facts and circumstances as to the stage of the criminal case or the departmental proceedings as the case may be, the conduct and the attitude of the employee towards early completion of the proceedings etc., cannot justify keeping the employee under suspension for years together, to enable the employee to luxuriate in idleness with monthly remittances to take care of his modest sustenance.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 7 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

D.Lakshmi Narayanan vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 9 September, 2021

9. In the overall consideration of the above scenario, the Courts have started interfering with the prolonged suspension when it found that there was no progress in the criminal case or in departmental proceedings. If there are compelling reasons and periodical review of the prolonged suspension, reflecting proper application of mind, for instance, the employee concerned is entirely responsible for the delay in completion of the criminal trial or the departmental proceedings, in that event, the Court cannot be justified in interfering with the suspension merely on the ground, the suspension being prolonged. The reliance placed in the letter dated 23.07.2015, is not a valid ground for prolonging the suspension, as the same letter was also the subject matter of consideration by the Division Bench in its decision (W.A (MD) No.100 of 2017 dated 13.02.2017, in the case of M.Murugan Vs. The Deputy Inspector https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 58 W.P.No.40923 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.11225 of 2020 General of Police) and recently by a learned Single Judge in a decision dated 09.09.2021, in W.P.No.19037 of 2021, in the case of D.Lakshmi Narayanan Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government. Both the decisions have been cited supra. In the circumstances cliched citing of pendency of criminal case, without adverting to the surrounding facts and circumstances as to the stage of the criminal case or the departmental proceedings as the case may be, the conduct and the attitude of the employee towards early completion of the proceedings etc., cannot justify keeping the employee under suspension for years together, to enable the employee to luxuriate in idleness with monthly remittances to take care of his modest sustenance.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - C Saravanan - Full Document

The Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... vs N. Shanmugasundaram on 5 November, 2007

In https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 33 W.P.No.40923 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.11225 of 2020 W.A.No.1114 of 2007, dated 05.11.2007 also, a Division Bench of this Court [SJMJ, as he then was and NPVJ], in the case of the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and others vs. N.Shanmugasundaram, set aside the order of a learned Single Judge quashing an order of suspension and allowed the Writ Appeal and upheld the order of suspension on similar grounds.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 14 - S J Mukhopadhaya - Full Document

The Management Of Hotel Imperial, New ... vs Hotel Workers' Union on 21 May, 1959

In the said Judgment, the decisions of the Supreme Court in Hotel Imperial v. Hotel Workers' Union reported in AIR 1959 SC 1342 : 1959 II LLJ 544 and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 34 W.P.No.40923 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.11225 of 2020 in R.P.Kapur v. Union of India reported in AIR 1964 SC 787 : 1966 II LLJ 164 were followed and upheld the similar order of suspension.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 349 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next