-
Latest Post
Showing posts with label COURT NEWS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label COURT NEWS. Show all posts
Supreme Court sets bar on suspension of Govt employees
A government employee can't be kept suspended for more than three months if not formally informed about the charges, the Supreme Court said Monday.
Based on the principle of human dignity and the right to speedy trial, the landmark verdict is expected to affect lakhs of government employees across India, many of whom are under suspension for years pending departmental proceedings.
"Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration," a bench headed by justice Vikramjit Sen said.
If the charge sheet or memorandum of charges was served within three month, the suspension could be extended, it ruled.
"If it (suspension) is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning…, this would render it punitive in nature," the court said.
It agreed with petitioner's senior counsel Nidhesh Gupta that a suspension order can't continue for an unreasonably long period.
Protracted periods of suspension had become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be, the court said. It drew a parallel with criminal investigation wherein a person accused of heinous crime is released from jail after the expiry of 90 days if police fail to file the charge sheet.
The suspended persons suffers even before being charged and "his torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination". "Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement," the court said, setting aside a direction of the central vigilance commission that required departmental proceedings to be kept in abeyance pending a criminal investigation.
The government, however, was free to transfer the officer concerned to any department in any of its offices to ensure the employee did not misuse contacts for obstructing the probe, the court said.
The order came on a petition filed by defence estate officer Ajay Kumar Choudhary, who was suspended in September 2011 for allegedly issuing wrong no-objection certificates for the use of a four-acre land parcel in Kashmir. After failing to get relief from the Delhi high court, Choudhary had moved the top court in 2013.
Since a charge sheet had already been served on Choudhary, these directions would not apply to his case, the court said.
Source : http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/supreme-court-sets-bar-on-suspension-of-govt-employees/article1-1317561.aspx
GDS Court Case - Latest Position
GDS Court case (Writ Petition) filed by NFPE & AIPEU -GDS (NFPE) in the Supreme Court was transferred to Delhi High Court by Supreme Court.. In the meantime another case was filed by some GDS in Supreme Court through another Advocate. In that case their Advocate has agreed to file a case in Central Administrative Tribunal for getting the benefits of regular employees to GDS . Accordingly Supreme Court has given a judgement permitting them to file case in CAT. It is in this background our case in the Delhi High Court came up for hearing on 4th February 2015. The Delhi High Court has given a verdict to transfer the entire case filed by NFPE & AIPEU - GDS (NFPE) to CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi. There is no need to file separate case in CAT. Delhi High Court case will be transferred to CAT by High Court. We have decided to argue our case in CAT Principal Bench New Delhi and continue our legal battle for justice till end. In CAT it will take maximum four months for Judgement.
RR.N. Parashar, P. Pandurangarao
Secretary General General Secretary
NFPE AIPEU - GDS (NFPE)
Source : http://nfpe.blogspot.in/
CAT Hyderabad order in OA 56/2014 - RTP Services to count for MACPs
Click here to view the Judgement
RTI - Applicant's detailed address NOT obligatory - Court order published by DoPT
No. 1/31/2013-IR
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
North Block, New Delhi,
Dated the 8th January, 2014
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Order dated 20.11.2013 of the High Court of Kolkata in Writ Petition No 33290 of 2013 in the case of Mr Avishek Goenka Vs Union of India regarding personal details of RTI applicants circulation of.
In compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in its said order, a copy of the judgement (order) is enclosed here with for appropriate action.
2. This may be brought to the notice of all concerned.
sd/-
(Sandeep Jain)
Director
Source: www.persmin.gov.in
[http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02rti/1_31_2013-IR.pdf]
Sending vulgar messages, pix amounts to outraging modesty: High Court
CHANDIGARH: Sending vulgar messages and posting objectionable photographs of young girls on internet tantamount to outraging modesty of woman, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed while denying anticipatory bail to an accused.
It said such incidents have been "tremendously increasing day-by-day, ruining the social fabric of our society" and need "to be curbed with heavy hands".
The observation was made by Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar while hearing an anticipatory ..
Central Administrative Tribunal quashes fresh proceedings against retired employee
CHENNAI: Can an employee be punished twice for the same offence? No, said the Chennai bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on Wednesday quashing an order of the ministry of communications and IT to initiate fresh proceedings against a retired assistant postmaster who had undergone punishment for his supervisory lapses.
The matter pertains to V Muthukannu, sub-postmaster in Karur division, who was accused of irregular closure of a recurring deposit and non-account of deposits. In his submissions to the tribunal, Muthukannu said in March 2010, the superintendent of post offices ordered recovery of Rs 8,000 per month from his salary for the loss caused to the postal department. After seven months, it was increased to Rs 12,000. For his contributory negligence, he paid Rs 5.07 lakh to the department. Also, for a year, his salary was reduced and no increments were provided, said Muthukannu.
However, in April 2012, a month before his retirement, the member (personnel), department of posts, dropped the earlier concluded proceedings and initiated a fresh proceeding for the same lapses. He was also issued a memo stating his retirement benefits had been withheld. He asked the CAT to set aside the order for fresh proceedings.
In the counter, the department of post denied the averments and said Muthukannu was involved in a fraud to the tune of Rs 17.46 lakh at the Karur head post office. Fresh proceedings were initiated according to the rules and there was no question of "double jeopardy." Further, it was an exceptional case and had to be dealt with accordingly.
The bench comprising judicial member B Venkateshwara Rao and administrative member P Prabhakaran said, "Once the punishment imposed is undergone, no one can direct a fresh inquiry in the same set of charges."
The bench quashed the order for fresh proceedings and directed the department to pay all retrial benefits to Muthukannu.
Source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Central Administrative Tribunal quashes fresh proceedings against retired employee
CHENNAI: Can an employee be punished twice for the same offence? No, said the Chennai bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on Wednesday quashing an order of the ministry of communications and IT to initiate fresh proceedings against a retired assistant postmaster who had undergone punishment for his supervisory lapses.
The matter pertains to V Muthukannu, sub-postmaster in Karur division, who was accused of irregular closure of a recurring deposit and non-account of deposits. In his submissions to the tribunal, Muthukannu said in March 2010, the superintendent of post offices ordered recovery of Rs 8,000 per month from his salary for the loss caused to the postal department. After seven months, it was increased to Rs 12,000. For his contributory negligence, he paid Rs 5.07 lakh to the department. Also, for a year, his salary was reduced and no increments were provided, said Muthukannu.
However, in April 2012, a month before his retirement, the member (personnel), department of posts, dropped the earlier concluded proceedings and initiated a fresh proceeding for the same lapses. He was also issued a memo stating his retirement benefits had been withheld. He asked the CAT to set aside the order for fresh proceedings.
In the counter, the department of post denied the averments and said Muthukannu was involved in a fraud to the tune of Rs 17.46 lakh at the Karur head post office. Fresh proceedings were initiated according to the rules and there was no question of "double jeopardy." Further, it was an exceptional case and had to be dealt with accordingly.
The bench comprising judicial member B Venkateshwara Rao and administrative member P Prabhakaran said, "Once the punishment imposed is undergone, no one can direct a fresh inquiry in the same set of charges."
The bench quashed the order for fresh proceedings and directed the department to pay all retrial benefits to Muthukannu.
Source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Implementation of Supreme Court Judgement on Rank Pay Case
Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
18-December-2013 17:10 IST
Implementation of Supreme Court Judgement on Rank Pay Case
In compliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated 04.09.2012 which dealt with the rank pay matter, the Government has issued an order on 27.12.2012 for implementing the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
2840 serving officers and 33814 retired officers of the Army, Navy and Air Force have been paid a total amount of Rs.347 crores as their admissible dues. Additionally, Pension Payment Orders (PPOs) in respect of 12129 Army officers, 2187 Navy officers and 5557 Air Force officers have been revised.
However, the Armed Forces have raised certain issues regarding interpretation of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are under examination. This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Dr. T.N. Seema in Rajya Sabha today.
Source: PIB News