IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
S.V.S.S. Ramalingeswarudu – Appellant
Versus
The Singareni Collieries Company Limited SCCL – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of petitioner’s service and charges (Para 1) |
| 2. respondent's arguments on discipline proceedings (Para 2) |
| 3. main issue of jurisdiction on charge memo (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. jurisdictional rules on time limits for charges (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 5. precedents on limitation for disciplinary actions (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. ruling on jurisdiction and time limits (Para 10) |
| 7. conclusion and orders of the court (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
Sri Goda Shiva, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Goda Rama Lakshmi, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner joined respondent – Singareni Collieries Company Limited as Mining Graduate Trainee (MGT) on 12.03.1983. On account of hard work, meritorious service and several achievements, he was promoted as General Manager on 20.05.2013. After serving 37 years and 8 months of dedicated service, he retired as General Manager (HRD) on 30.11.2020 on attaining the age of 60 years.
1.1 Petitioner states that he was constrained to approach this Court after his retirement as respondents nearly more than 4 years after he left the Contract Management Cell as General Manager, issued a Charge Memo (Articles of Charges) da
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala v. Atma Singh Grewal
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.