Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
P. Radhakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government Home (Police II) Department – Respondent
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned order of suspension passed by the 3rd respondent in RO No.46/2006 in C.No.B2/792/2006 dated 29.01.2006 and the 4th respondent in DO No.42/2006 in C.No.D3/28713/1998 dated 29.01.2006 and the consequential order of not permitting the petitioner to retire from service issued by the 4th respondent in DO No.46/2006 in C.No.D3/28713/1998 dated 30.01.2006 and the 3rd respondent in RO.47/2006 and C.No.B2/792/2006 dated 30.01.2006 and quash the same and direct the respondents to superannuate the petitioner from service and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned charge memo issued to him in PR No.60/2018 U/r 3(b) dated 11.05.2018 and quash the same and further dire
Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not bar departmental disciplinary proceedings, and delay in disciplinary proceedings cannot be solely attributed to the respondents if it is due to the petition....
Delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings and issuing charge memos can vitiate the proceedings and warrant their quashing, especially when the delay is unjustifiable and prejudicial to the employe....
Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings can cause prejudice to the accused and may lead to the quashing of charges. G.O.338 prohibits the continuation of disciplinary proceedings agai....
The delay in serving the charge memo, the relevance of the criminal case's outcome on departmental proceedings, and the similarity of charges in the criminal and departmental proceedings are crucial ....
Delay in initiating the departmental proceedings and splitting up of delinquencies into separate charge memos are fatal and illegal, respectively.
Protracted disciplinary proceedings without valid justification, especially post-acquittal in criminal cases, constitute harassment and must be quashed.
Disciplinary proceedings against a government employee should be concluded expeditiously, and any unexplained delay may vitiate the proceedings.
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....
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
