Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2020 (2) TMI 1459

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tention of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 who was working as junior engineer [Civil] in the respondent No.1 - University has produced the fake marks cards and fake certificates to secure the employment. It is submitted that the marks cards at Annexures-A, B and C and the certificate at Annexure-D were signed by the Secretary, who was not holding the charge during the relevant period. Hence, seeks for interference of this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition submitted that, the official respondents have failed to consider the consolidated marks cards and diploma certificate of the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 had played fraud to secure the employment and thus he is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the reason that the petitioner claiming to be the erstwhile superior officer of the respondent No.3 who is now retired, cannot seek the relief of initiating disciplinary proceedings/criminal proceedings against the respondent No.3. If any such fraud alleged said to have been committed by the respondent No.3, ought to have been discovered by the petitioner during his service period in order to initiate the disciplinary proceedings/criminal proceedings against the respondent No.3. The petitioner/officer after his retirement becomes functus officio. No officer can continue to discharge his functions subsequent to his retirement and more particularly, to take action against the subordinate officer or to seek such direction from this Court. As c....