//
archives

disciplinary authority

This tag is associated with 3 posts

Service matter – Non supply of UPSC Advise report before imposing penalty is void – charges framed against delinquent – denied – Enquiry found no charges proved and send the report – Disciplinary Authority not satisfied the report and formed opinion to punish the delinquent – issued show cause notice – explanation submitted – Disciplinary authority send the same for opinion of UPSC – advise of U.P.S.C – not furnished and not asked for explanation from the delinquent – challanged – tribunal dismissed – High court set aside the both orders and direct to furnish report of UPSC and to give an opportunity to submit explanation before imposing penalty – Apex court confirmed the same and dismissed the appeal = UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …….APPELLANTS VERSUS R.P.SINGH ……RESPONDENT= 2014 (May.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41544

Service matter – Non supply of UPSC Advise report before imposing penalty is void – charges framed against delinquent – denied – Enquiry found no charges proved and send the report – Disciplinary Authority not satisfied the report and formed opinion to punish the delinquent – issued show cause notice – explanation submitted – Disciplinary authority send … Continue reading

Service matter – Regulations 60(1)(b) – dismissed from service at preliminary enquiry stage – with out forming opinion whether to conduct regular inquiry or not – not valid- challanged – High court held that the disciplinary authority, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, had not formed any opinion either to hold a regular inquiry or not as contemplated under Regulation 58 for imposing the major penalty and, accordingly, he quashed the order of punishment as well as the show cause notice.- Apex court held that opinion has to be founded on certain objective criteria. It must reflect some reason. It can neither be capricious or fanciful but demonstrative of application of mind. Therefore, it has to be in writing. It may be on the file and may not be required to be communicated to the employee but when it is subject to assail and, eventually, subject to judicial review, the competent authority of the Corporation is required to satisfy the Court that the opinion was formed on certain parameters indicating that there was no necessity to hold an enquiry. Thus, the High Court has correctly understood the principle stated in A. Prabhakar Rao (supra) and we do not find any fault with the same.= Food Corporation of India & Ors. |.. Appellant(s) | Versus |Sarat Chandra Goswami |.. Respondent(s) = 2014(May.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41543

  Service matter – Regulations 60(1)(b) – dismissed from service at preliminary enquiry stage – with out forming opinion whether to conduct regular inquiry or not – not valid-  challanged – High court held that the  disciplinary authority, the Chairman-cum-Managing  Director,  had  not  formed  any opinion either to hold a regular inquiry or not as contemplated  under  Regulation 58 for imposing the  major … Continue reading

whether the tahsildar has got power to suspend the fair price shop dealer ?=the appointing authority for a fair price shop dealer is the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Sub-Collector concerned. It is the appointing authority, who can exercise the power of suspending the authorization, but not the agency, which is subordinate to the appointing authority for the fair price shop dealer. Therefore, it is contended that the Tahsildar, Narayankhed Mandal has no power to suspend the authorization of the fair price shop of the petitioner.=as per the definition of expression “disciplinary authority”, the Tahsildars in certain areas do fall within that expression. Therefore, the Tahsildar, Narayankhed Mandal of Medak District is legitimately entitled to exercise the power of disciplinary authority. Under Clause (20) of the Order mentioned supra, an appeal would lie to the appellate authority. It is therefore appropriate that the writ petitioner should approach the appellate authority, as certain disputes, which are essentially and intricately involved in determination of facts, are involved in the present case.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICENOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1325 of 2012 ORDER: This writ petition is preferred by a fair price shop dealer of Anantasagar Village of Narayankhed Mandal of Medak District challenging the validity of the orders passed on 17.12.2011 by the Tahsildar, Narayankhed Mandal suspending the authorization of the fair price shop of … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,859,660 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,903 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com