Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN
Indu Bhushan Singh, son of late Shyam Kishore Prasad Sinha – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
ANANDA SEN, J.
The petitioner in this writ application has prayed to quash Resolution dated 04.03.2024 contained in Memo No. 1066(S) whereby proceeding against the petitioner under Rule 43(b) of the BIHAR PENSION RULES have been instituted. Further he prays for declaration that the departmental proceeding which was not concluded within the time frame as fixed by the Court vide order dated 03.11.2020 passed in WP(S) No. 1599 of 2014 be declared nonest in the eye of law and any proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules would be time barred and hit by law of limitation. He also prays for payment of arrears of salary.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Resolution dated 04.03.2024 is bad and the departmental proceeding could not have been converted to the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. It is his case once the Hon’ble High Court in WP(S) No. 1599 of 2014 vide order dated 03.11.2020 had fixed the time frame to conclude the department proceeding, no proceeding would have been continued beyond the said time frame nor the said could have been converted into that of one under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. He relied upon the judgment of co
Continuation of disciplinary proceedings beyond a court-specified time frame without requesting an extension violates procedural fairness and is invalid.
The jurisdiction of a state to impose disciplinary actions on an employee ceases once the employee is allocated to another state, and any disciplinary proceedings must adhere to statutory time limits....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
