Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
M. Senthilvelan – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dharmapuri – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court affirms the right of the bank to pursue disciplinary action. (Para 1 , 7 , 11 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 21) |
| 2. petitioner claimed unblemished service despite serious allegations. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. details of the petitioner's employment and misconduct are highlighted. (Para 3 , 8 , 13) |
| 4. arguments challenge the timing and validity of charges. (Para 6 , 9 , 14 , 19) |
| 5. implications of ongoing criminal proceedings analyzed. (Para 10 , 12 , 20) |
| 6. separate proceedings for discipline and criminal allegations. (Para 17) |
| 7. writ petitions dismissed; delay in proceedings explained. (Para 22 , 23) |
ORDER :
1. Both writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner and arguments were advanced in common by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the first and second respondents and therefore, a common order is passed.
2. The writ petition in W.P.No.12242 of 2025 has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to the charge memo dated 25.08.2024 and consequential notice in Na.Ka.No.92/2004 Tha.Ku.Na.Va. dated 10.03.2025 and 26.03.2025 on the file of the second respondent and to quash the same. The petiti
Disciplinary proceedings for employee misconduct can be maintained irrespective of delays from earlier actions, emphasizing the right to investigate allegations of financial irregularities.
The standard of proof required under the Co-operative Societies Act is distinct and different from that required under Criminal Law, and preponderance of probabilities suffices for punishment under t....
The distinct standards of proof required under different legal frameworks, such as criminal law and departmental disciplinary proceedings, and the independent nature of departmental disciplinary proc....
Employee dismissal requires substantial evidence of misconduct; failure to provide independent proof necessitates reconsideration of disciplinary actions.
The court ruled that disciplinary dismissals must adhere to natural justice and have sufficient evidence, particularly when severe penalties are imposed, as seen in cases of clerical errors.
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
