//
archives

haryana state

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Service matter – whether once a charge-sheet has been issued for imposition of a major penalty under Regulation 7 of the Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1990 [for short “the Regulations 1990”], is it obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a full fledged departmental inquiry even if, after considering the reply of the delinquent, the authority decides to impose a minor penalty, for which no departmental inquiry is provided under the Regulations.= Sub-regulation 8 of Regulation 7, which reads as follows: “7(8). Where an employee has been charge-sheeted under this regulation and the Competent Authority, on receipt of his reply to the charge sheet is of the opinion that no major punishment as laid down in Regulation-4 (vi to x) is called for, it may dispense with the holding of enquiry and inflict straight-away any of the minor penalties as laid down in Clause (i) to (v) of the ibid Regulation by a speaking order.” 12. Above referred regulations, especially Regulation 7(8) clearly indicates that the competent authority has got the power to dispense with the procedure for holding a departmental inquiry, even though it had contemplated major penalty proceedings, on being satisfied with the reply submitted by the delinquent officer. In such a case, it can always follow the procedure for imposing minor penalty. Minor penalty, as per the Regulation, can be inflicted without holding any departmental inquiry, by giving only a show-cause-notice and a reasonable opportunity to make a representation to the show-cause-notice. Personal hearing can also be afforded and also can be dispensed with by a speaking order.= The delinquent officer was given an opportunity to submit his reply to the show-cause-notice which was considered and the Board took a conscious decision to impose only a minor penalty, i.e. barring one increment without cumulative effect, for which no full-fledged departmental inquiry is contemplated. Learned District Judge as well as the High Court, in our view, has committed a grave error in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Board which, in our view, is perfectly legal, going by the regulations referred to herein before. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned District Judge as well as that of the High Court is set aside. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that, by virtue of the punishment imposed, he has not been given his due promotion. We are of the view that if imposition of a minor penalty is not a bar in granting promotion to the respondent, due promotion be granted to him in accordance with the Rules and Regulations applicable to him.

   published in     http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40611 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6150 OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5230 of 2013] D.H.B.V.N.L. Vidyut Nagar, Hisar & Others .. Appellants Versus Yashvir Singh Gulia .. Respondent J U D G M E N T K. S. Radhakrishnan, … Continue reading

On line business through Rediff.com – The main allegation of the complainant against the opposite party is that the opposite party failed to inform the complainant as to how the items received by the complainant are to be returned to the seller. Since the opposite party was facilitator between the seller and buyers as mentioned in the terms and conditions for Rediff Shopping Anneure-OP1 in the column “online Shopping Platform” Annexure-OP1-A, so it was the duty of the opposite party to inform the complainant as to how the goods are to be returned to the seller. A letter was issued through the opposite party to the complainant Annexure-C1 according to which the seller had undertaken to replace the produce at no cost to the buyer if the buyer inform the seller within 30 days of the delivery of the order, which shows that had the opposite party informed the complainant about the procedure and from the goods purchased by the complainant through the opposite party are to be returned, the complainant would have taken the benefit of the facility given by the seller under Annexure-C1. Although the opposite party did not charge any price from the complainant from mediating between the seller and the complainant yet it is implied that the opposite party which was giving service to the seller to invite buyers to purchase the goods is a service as contemplated under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and the complainant has locus standi to file the complainant against the opposite party.”= “Admittedly, the opposite party was facilitator between the seller and buyers (complainant) as mentioned in the terms and conditions for Rediff Shopping Annexure OP-1 in the column “Online Shopping Platform” Annexure OP1-A. It was the duty of the opposite party to inform the complainant as to how the goods could be returned to the seller. As per letter Annexure C-1, which was written by the seller to the complainant through the opposite party, the seller had undertaken to replace the product at no cost in case the buyer informed the seller within 30 days of the delivery of product.”= it is clearly stated that the respondent company is engaged in business of providing services through its internet portal (www.rediff.com) to interested buyers and sellers by acting as a means of communication between them and bringing into existence contracts of sale and purchase of movable goods. If this is the declared business interest of the RP/OP it cannot be permitted to claim that it is providing purely gratuitous service to its customers, without any consideration. It is certainly not the case of RP/OP that it is a charitable organisation involved in e-commerce, with no business returns for itself. We therefore, reject the contention of the revision petitioner that the respondent/Complainant is not a consumer of the revision petitioner within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO.4656  OF 2012 (Against the order dated 19.09.2011 in First Appeal No.1568 of 2007 of the State Commission, Haryana ) Rediff.com India Limited 1st Floor, Mahalaxmi Engineering Estate L.J. Road No.1, Mahim Mumbai- 400016, Through Jyoti Ravi Sachdeva, Company Secretary and Associate Director Legal Authorized Signatory                                                                                                              ……….Petitioner Versus … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,867,402 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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

Join 1,904 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com