Mahipal Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Mahipal Singh vs Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Delhi Decided Feb 16, 1999

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/701047

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/701047
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: K. Ramamoorthy, J.
Decided On: Feb 16, 1999
Case Number: C.W. No. 548 of 1998
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

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

The petitioner filed a petition to quash a charge sheet under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - The Court quashed the charge sheet and entitled the petitioner to be considered for promotion and other consequential benefits. -

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mahipal Singh

Advocate D.K. Kapur, Sr. Adv. and; F. Hassain, Adv

Respondent

Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Advocate Inderjit Sidhu, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226
Cases Referred: D.P. Bambam v. Union of India and Ors.
Reported In: 1999IIAD(Delhi)688; 78(1999)DLT722

Excerpt

the petitioner filed a petition to quash a charge sheet under article 226 of the constitution of india, 1950 - the court quashed the charge sheet and entitled the petitioner to be considered for promotion and other consequential benefits. - k. ramamoorthy, j.1. the writ petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the charge-sheet dated 1.10.1991 on the basis of delay. according to the petitioner, there has been no justification in issuing charge-sheet. the point raised in the writ petition is covered by the judgment of the division bench of this court in cw no. 3145/94 and cw 5887/94 dated 1.5.1995 and following the judgment of the supreme court. this has also been followed by this court in d.p. bambam v. union of india and ors. : 74(1998)dlt437 . 2. in view of the settled position, the writ petition stands allowed. 3. the charge-sheet dated 1.10.1991 is quashed. the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion and other consequential benefits. there shall be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The writ petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the charge-sheet dated 1.10.1991 on the basis of delay. According to the petitioner, there has been no justification in issuing charge-sheet. The point raised in the writ petition is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in CW No. 3145/94 and CW 5887/94 dated 1.5.1995 and following the judgment of the Supreme Court. This has also been followed by this Court in D.P. Bambam v. Union of India and Ors. : 74(1998)DLT437 .

2. In view of the settled position, the writ petition stands allowed.

3. The charge-sheet dated 1.10.1991 is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion and other consequential benefits. There shall be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1999 Same Parties Mahipal Singh vs Delhi Development Authority and anr. Same Subject Service Same Judge K. Ramamoorthy, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226

Service