Back
M. S. RAMESH
S. Sivakumar – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9 – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner herein, while serving as an Assistant under the respondent, was levelled with certain charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), through a charge memo dated 21.11.2006. The substance of the charge is that he had failed to bring out the facts in his note file regarding the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer while granting patta to the higher officials. Along with the petitioner, the Assistant Settlement Officer, against whom certain delinquencies have also been imputed, was proceeded with a common enquiry under Rule 9A of the Rules. The Enquiry Officer had held 7 out of the 9 charges as having been partially proved and one charge as not proved, through his report dated 03.03.2009. Consequently, the respondent had issued a second show cause notice dated 21.12.2009, which is claimed to have been received by the petitioner on 03.06.2010 calling for his further explanation. On the same day of receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner herein has submitted his explanation. Thereafter, there was no further progress in the departmental proceedings, which promp
The main legal point established is that charges under Rule 17(b) must be carefully assessed to determine if they amount to misconduct. Additionally, in cases of identical charges, selective discrimi....
Inordinate delay in concluding departmental proceedings can be fatal to the action initiated by the respondents and can prejudice the petitioner, leading to the quashing of the impugned order and gra....
Delay in initiating the departmental proceedings and splitting up of delinquencies into separate charge memos are fatal and illegal, respectively.
Inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings prejudices the charged officer unless there is a proper explanation for the delay.
Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings and absence of witnesses in the charge memo vitiates the proceedings and causes serious prejudice to the delinquent, rendering consequential pr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to avoid inordinate delays in disciplinary proceedings, the serious prejudice and mental distress caused by such delays, and the court's a....
Point of law: suspension was prolonged for more than 11 years in some of the judgments referred above. But, still, the Courts held that, it depends upon the circumstances of each case and varies from....
Disciplinary proceedings were invalidated due to inordinate delay, lack of a reasoned order, and violations of natural justice principles, necessitating quashal of the punishment imposed.
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
