Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Rajamanickam S. vs Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation, ... on 14 September, 1999 cites

Rama Kant Misra vs State Of U.P. And Others on 21 October, 1982

(iii) The decision of the Supreme Court in Rama Kant Misra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (supra) has no application, as it was a case of mere use of abusive language. The instant case is not a case of mere filmy language, but also a case of assault on the Warehouse Manager and he was pushed down from the chair by the petitioner, the telephone instrument was thrown upon him, he was kicked with foot, chappals, etc. Therefore, the said decision of the Supreme Court has no application to the facts of the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 101 - D A Desai - Full Document

Sri Bharathi Mills (Unit Of Ntctn And P) ... vs N.S. Mohan on 1 August, 1991

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon an unreported decision of D.RAJU, J. (as his Lordship then was) in W.P. No 6056 of 1988, which was affirmed by a Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Bharati Mills v. S. S. Mohan (supra), wherein this Court has held that where an employer takes into account the past objectionable conduct of employee and imposed extreme penalty of termination of service but the employee was not put into notice of such intention of employer and where the objectionable past conduct was not made a part of charge-memo, the principles of natural justice would be violated and the order of dismissal was liable to be set aside. In my view, the said decision has no application to the facts of the case. The order of disciplinary authority does not indicate anywhere that he took into account same past misconduct of the petitioner before framing the charges. On the other hand, the charges that were levelled against the petitioner was not only with reference to the past misconduct, but also the incident of assault and the enquiry was held on those charges and on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority has found that the charges were also proved. Hence, it is not a case where the disciplinary authority has taken into consideration certain past misconduct without putting on notice to the petitioner the past misconduct before passing an order of dismissal. Hence, the decision of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 6056 of 1988 which was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court has no application to the facts of the case.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - A S Anand - Full Document

B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995

As already noticed, the Supreme Court in Chaturvedi case (supra), has also held that the delay by itself is not a sufficient ground to quash the charges. I therefore hold that the respondents have properly explained the delay and hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on this aspect, is not well-founded and hence, the same is rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 2256 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

K. Jayaraman vs Superintendent Of Police, Erode And ... on 13 April, 1989

9. The only point remains to be considered is whether there was any delay and the delay has vitiated the entire proceedings. As already held by me, there are no materials to show that the respondents have terminated the disciplinary proceedings already initiated. After framing of the charges and after getting the explanation from the petitioner, the vigilance Officer conducted the enquiry, collected the statements of the witnesses and the enquiry officer was also appointed and the petitioner was given full and ample opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses and naturally it took some time. The fact that the respondents have been pursuing the matter even after dropping of the criminal proceedings shows that the proceedings were not terminated by the respondents at any point of time. That apart the petitioner has also not established tnat the prejudice was caused by the delay by proving that he was prevented from leading any evidence or examining any witnesses on his side and he was not able to put forward his defence effectively because of the alleged delay. This Court in the case of K. Jayaraman v. Superintendent of Police, Erode and Anr., (supra) has held that the delay by itself is not a ground to quash the charges unless it is shown that after the completion of the proceedings, it has turned out to be a factor which has deprived the right of defence. This Court has held that no greater emphasis could be laid on the delay and what is important is to find out whether in a particular case based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced, the finding of guilt had been arrived at and unless the delinquent was able to establish that he was unable to defend himself because of the delay, the delay by itself would not be a ground to quash the proceedings. This decision was rendered by a Division Bench of this Court and I am bound by the ratio of the Division Bench.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

A. Malaichamy vs Director Of Health Services And Family ... on 25 March, 1988

Learned counsel of the petitioner also relied on a decision of this Court in A. Malaichamy v. Director of Health Services and Family Planning and Anr., (supra) and in that case, after the commencement of the enquiry, no progress was made for a period of five years and on the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has held that disciplinary proceedings should be quashed. This decision has also no application to the facts of the case, as seen earlier that the respondents have not kept quiet, but proceeded further with the collection of materials after getting explanation from the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1