J.C. Dalvariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

J.C. Dalvariya vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Dec 17, 2012

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1040951

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1040951
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Dec 17, 2012
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

J.C. Dalvariya

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....was granted liberty to raise all points at the time of conclusion of the inquiry while passing the final order and the application for grant of documents was to be considered by the disciplinary authority. 2 writ petition no :21115. 2012 j.c.dalvariya versus state of madhya pradesh & others.now, the disciplinary authority has rejected the claim by giving various reasons in the impugned order. once the matter has been decided by the disciplinary authority, no further indulgence into the matter is called for, particularly when in the earlier writ petition itself this court has indicated that the petitioner can challenge the final order that has been passed after conclusion of the inquiry. a writ court is not to monitor the proceedings to be held under rule 14, of the rules of 1966, and on the ground of irregularity at every stage, interference by a writ petition is not called for. a writ petition at an interlocutory stage of the departmental inquiry is not maintainable. the petitioner can challenge the final action taken and all the grounds raised are to be pointed out before the competent authority after the final decision is taken or before finalization of the departmental inquiry. keeping in view the aforesaid, i see no reason to interfere at this interlocutory stage. accordingly, petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise the grounds after final orders are passed, before this court. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge aks/-

Full Judgment

Writ Petition No :

21115. 2012 J.C.Dalvariya versus State of Madhya Pradesh & otheRs.17.12.2012.

Shri Ajay Ojha for the petitioner.

Shri B.P.Pandey, Panel Lawyer, for respondents 1 and 2.

Petitioner is presently posted as Assistant Conservator of Forest (Production).Sehore.

A charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P/4 and a departmental proceeding under Rule 14 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1966’).is pending.

Petitioner demanded certain documents vide application - Annexure P/5 dated 6.8.2009.

When the same was not supplied petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.18676/2010 and the same was disposed of directing the competent authority to consider the application of the petitioner and grant him appropriate copies.

Grievance of the petitioner is not that the objection of the petitioner has been rejected vide order-dated 10.9.2012 - Annexure P/1 and, therefore, petitioner is before this Court.

It is seen from the records that only a departmental proceeding is initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner not wants this Court to monitor the proceedings and grant him the benefit of supplying documents and annexures at every stage of the inquiry.

In the writ petition, petitioner was granted liberty to raise all points at the time of conclusion of the inquiry while passing the final order and the application for grant of documents was to be considered by the disciplinary authority.

2 Writ Petition No :

21115. 2012 J.C.Dalvariya versus State of Madhya Pradesh & otheRs.Now, the disciplinary authority has rejected the claim by giving various reasons in the impugned order.

Once the matter has been decided by the disciplinary authority, no further indulgence into the matter is called for, particularly when in the earlier writ petition itself this Court has indicated that the petitioner can challenge the final order that has been passed after conclusion of the inquiry.

A writ court is not to monitor the proceedings to be held under Rule 14, of the Rules of 1966, and on the ground of irregularity at every stage, interference by a writ petition is not called for.

A writ petition at an interlocutory stage of the departmental inquiry is not maintainable.

The petitioner can challenge the final action taken and all the grounds raised are to be pointed out before the competent authority after the final decision is taken or before finalization of the departmental inquiry.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, I see no reason to interfere at this interlocutory stage.

Accordingly, petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise the grounds after final orders are passed, before this Court.

Certified copy as per rules.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties J.C. Dalvariya vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Land Acquisition