Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.21 seconds)Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Prabhakar Ramakrishna Jodh vs A. L. Pande And Another on 12 January, 1965
16. From perusal of the aforesaid clauses of the College Code, it is clear that
appellant/ Institute is an Aided institute and affiliated with the Rajiv
Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidhyalaya, Bhopal and service
conditions of respondent No.1/ employee are governed by College
Code Statute No.30 i.e. Rajiv Gandhi Proudhyogiki Vishwavidyalaya
(College Code Statute), 2007. Therefore, in view of the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of A.L. Pande (supra), writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by respondent No.1 was
11
very well maintainable. Learned Writ Court rightly passed the
impugned order and held the writ petition maintainable.
St. Marys Education Society vs Rajendra Prasad Bhargava on 24 August, 2022
11. The judgment of A.L. Pandey (supra) has been followed by the
Apex Court in the case of St. Mary's Education Society and
Another Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Others, (2023) 4
SCC 498, in which question was raised regarding any Aided Private
School affiliated with CBSE falls within the ambit of 'State" under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India. After discussing the issue in
detail, the Apex Court summed up the conclusion as under:-
Chairman Lic Of India & Ors vs A Masilamani on 23 November, 2012
18. The learned Writ Court considered this aspect and rightly held that
departmental authority violated the principle of natural justice.
However, when inquiry is vitiated then it ought to be started from the
stage where deficiency in procedure is noticed. This aspect is
discussed by the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Life
Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. A. Masilamani,
(2013) 6 SCC 530. Relevant discussion is reproduced below:-
Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
"16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the Court sets aside an
order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly
conducted, the Court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the
concerned case to the disciplinary authority, for it to conduct the enquiry
from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide: ECIL
Vs. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074; Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya Vs.
Secretary, S.M. School for Girls, (2002) 10 SCC 293; U.P. State Spinning
Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey, (2005) 8 SCC 264; and Union of India Vs. Y.S.
12
Sandhu, AIR 2009 SC 161).
U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005
"16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the Court sets aside an
order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly
conducted, the Court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the
concerned case to the disciplinary authority, for it to conduct the enquiry
from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide: ECIL
Vs. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074; Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya Vs.
Secretary, S.M. School for Girls, (2002) 10 SCC 293; U.P. State Spinning
Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey, (2005) 8 SCC 264; and Union of India Vs. Y.S.
12
Sandhu, AIR 2009 SC 161).
Union Of India vs Y.S.Sadhu.Ex-Inspector on 22 September, 2008
"16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the Court sets aside an
order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly
conducted, the Court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the
concerned case to the disciplinary authority, for it to conduct the enquiry
from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide: ECIL
Vs. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074; Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya Vs.
Secretary, S.M. School for Girls, (2002) 10 SCC 293; U.P. State Spinning
Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey, (2005) 8 SCC 264; and Union of India Vs. Y.S.
12
Sandhu, AIR 2009 SC 161).
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Brahma Datt Sharma And Anr on 25 February, 1987
18. The court/tribunal should not generally set aside the departmental
enquiry, and quash the charges on the ground of delay in initiation of
disciplinary proceedings, as such a power is de hors the limitation of
judicial review. In the event that, the court/tribunal exercises such power,
it exceeds its power of judicial review at the very threshold. Therefore, a
charge-sheet or show cause notice, issued in the course of disciplinary
proceedings, cannot ordinarily be quashed by court. The same principle is
applicable, in relation to there being a delay in conclusion of disciplinary
proceedings. The facts and circumstances of the case in question, have to
be examined, taking into consideration the gravity/magnitude of charges
involved therein. The essence of the matter is that the court must take into
consideration, all relevant facts and to balance and weigh the same, so as
to determine, if it is in fact in the interest of clean and honest
administration, that the judicial proceedings are allowed to be
terminated, only on the ground of delay in their conclusion. (Vide: State
of U.P. Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma, AIR 1987 SC 943; State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh & Anr., AIR 1990 SC 1308; Union of India Vs.
Ashok Kacker, 1995 Supp.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bani Singh And Another on 5 April, 1990
18. The court/tribunal should not generally set aside the departmental
enquiry, and quash the charges on the ground of delay in initiation of
disciplinary proceedings, as such a power is de hors the limitation of
judicial review. In the event that, the court/tribunal exercises such power,
it exceeds its power of judicial review at the very threshold. Therefore, a
charge-sheet or show cause notice, issued in the course of disciplinary
proceedings, cannot ordinarily be quashed by court. The same principle is
applicable, in relation to there being a delay in conclusion of disciplinary
proceedings. The facts and circumstances of the case in question, have to
be examined, taking into consideration the gravity/magnitude of charges
involved therein. The essence of the matter is that the court must take into
consideration, all relevant facts and to balance and weigh the same, so as
to determine, if it is in fact in the interest of clean and honest
administration, that the judicial proceedings are allowed to be
terminated, only on the ground of delay in their conclusion. (Vide: State
of U.P. Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma, AIR 1987 SC 943; State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh & Anr., AIR 1990 SC 1308; Union of India Vs.
Ashok Kacker, 1995 Supp.