Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(4)Raj2865; 2004(2)WLC436
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This writ petition has been presented in the Registry of this Court on 22.12.2000. The petitioner has primarily challenged impugned orders An-nex.62 dated 4.5.1991 whereby pursuant to a departmental enquiry the Appointing Authority has imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service and Annex.64 dated 21.7.1992 whereby the appellate authority maintained the penalty order. On its face, the writ petition suffers from gross delay and, therefore, at the outset this Court called upon the counsel for the petitioner to show sufficient cause why this petition may not be dismissed only on the ground of laches.2. The gruelling narration of the facts leadings to delay in filing the writ petition is that on accrual of the cause of action, after dismissal of his appeal by the appellate authority, the petitioner engaged Shri Vinayak M. Joshi, Advocate and handed over him the file alongwith all relevant material. He also made payment of the full fees and expenses. It i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC375; 1954CriLJ993; (1954)IMLJ702(SC); [1954]1SCR1150
Mukherjea, J.1. This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution, praying for a writ, in the nature of certiorari, for calling up the records of certain criminal proceedings stated against the petitioner by the Special Judge, Sessions Court, Delhi, and for quashing the same on the ground that these proceedings are without jurisdiction, having been commenced in violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under article 20(2) of the Constitution.2. The petitioner was a member of the Indian Civil Service and till lately was employed as Secretary to the Ministry of Commerce and Industries in the Government of India. Certain imputations of misbehavior by the petitioner, while holding offices of various descriptions under the Government of India, came to the notice of the Central Government of and the latter being satisfied that there were prima facie good grounds for making an enquiry directed a formal and public enquiry to be made as to the truth or falsity of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1967Mad281
(1) These appeals are directed against the order of Srinivasan J. in W.P. 123 and 124 of 1961 in which the prayers were for the issue of a writ of certiorari and consequent writ of mandamus respectively. The prior facts required for a consideration of these two appeals are briefly the following:The appellant Mrs. Nesamoney Daniel was employed as a teacher in the Government aided Primary School, Pannimade estate, Annamalais. Under the rules issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, the appellant in her capacity as a teacher of a primary school, was obliged to take an insurance policy on her life. As instructed by the Life Insurance Corporation, she presented herself for medical examination, to one Dr. K.V. Mathai, M.B.B.S. the third respondent in the two writ petitions, who was at that time employed by the estate, in which the teacher was also employed. Sometime later, she received a communication from the Life Insurance Corporation stating that the report of the third respondent show...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC66; 1956CriLJ156; [1955]2SCR955
Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal with certificate under article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution arises out of an application under section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act (XXXII of 1952) and section 8 of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act (XXXVII of 1850) read with article 227 of the Constitution filed by the respondent against the appellant in the High Court of Judicature of Patna and raises an important question as to whether the Commissioner appointed under Act XXXVII of 1850 is a Court. 2. The respondent is a Member of the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch). The State Government received reports to the effect that the respondent had been guilty of serious misconduct and corrupt practices in the discharge of his official duties while employed as Sub-Divisional Officer at Aurangabad and they accordingly decided that an inquiry into the truth of the various charges against him should be made under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (Act XXXVII of 1850, hereinafte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Delay condoned in SLP (C) No. 25293 of 2008.2. Leave granted.3. This judgment shall dispose of all the above mentioned appeals as common question of law on somewhat similar facts arise in all the appeals for consideration of this Court.4. The Union of India being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 25th February, 2008 has filed the present appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The High Court declined to interfere with the Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') wherein the Tribunal, in exercise of its powers under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act had set aside the orders of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. However, the High Court granted liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the inquiry afresh from the stage of nomination of the inquiry officer.5....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC493; [1960]2SCR569
Shah, J.1. Sardar Kapur Singh (who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant) was admitted by the Secretary of State for India in Council to the Indian Civil Service upon the result of a competitive examination held at Delhi in 1931. After a period of training in the United Kingdom, the appellant returned to India in November, 1933 and was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Ferozepore in the Province of Punjab. He served in the Province in various capacities between the years 1933 and 1947. In July, 1947, he was posted as Deputy Commissioner at Dharamsala and continued to hold that office till February 11, 1948, when he was transferred to Hoshiarpur at which place he continued to hold the office of Deputy Commissioner till a few days before April 14, 1949. On April 13, 1949, the appellant was served with an order passed by the Government of East Punjab suspending him from service. On May 5, 1950, the appellant submitted a representation to the President of India protesting agains...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2007(3)JCR530(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioners had claimed their regularisation on the ground that they worked for a long period under respondents No. 6 and 7 but were disengaged. Pursuant to the order passed on 5th August, 2002 in this writ petition, the authorities considered the matter and rejected the petitioners' claim by order dated 4.2.2003 (Annexure 21) which has been challenged by the petitioners by way of an amendment petition (I.A. No. 510 of 2003).2. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were Home Guards and in view of the letter dated 9.1.1997 issued by the District Commandant (Annexure 7), petitioners should be regularised. He relied on the order dated 6.3.2002 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. Nos. 2168 with 2223 of 2001 in the case of Birendra Kumar Pandey etc. He also submitted that the petitioners were public servants.3. Learned Counsel for the State relied on the Constitution Bench judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1969Cal198,72CWN328
ORDERB.C. Mitra, J. 1. This is an application for a rule nisi in a petition for a writ of quo warranto. The petition was moved on January 12, 1968, when an order was made directing the petitioner to serve notice of this application on the respondents. Pursuant to this order notice has been served upon the respondents who have appeared in this application, but some of them opposed the issue of a rulenisi, while others supported the petitioner.2. Briefly stated the events that have led to this application are as follows:--After the last Genera! Election several political parties, whose members are members of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council of West Bengal, formed a coalition under the name and style of 'United Front'. The members of the United Front in the Legislative Assembly, enjoyed the support of the majority, and the Governor appointed the respondent No. 12, who was the leader of the United Front, as the Chief Minister of the State, and on the recommendation of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.416 OF2018(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.5661 of 2017) DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN Appellant VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. Respondents JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 5th May, 2017 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No.1015 of 2016.2. this Court:- On 20th November, 2017 the following order was passed by Heard learned counsel for the parties. Certain adverse remarks were recorded against respondent No.2-Bhaskar Karbhari Gaidwad by the Principal and Head of the Department of the College of Pharmacy where respondent No.2 was employed. Respondent No.2 sought 1 sanction for his prosecution under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and for certain other connected offences. The said matter was dealt with by the petitioner a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No. 3732/2013 & CM Nos. 6984-85/2013 31st May, 2013 MEENA PREMCHANDANI Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Nitin Thakur, proxy counsel for Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate. VERSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Advocate for R-2 and R3. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition impugns the order dated 12.4.2013 of the Sindhi Academy, which is represented by respondent nos. 2 and 3. By the impugned order Sindhi Academy has appointed Mr. A.K.Hajelay, Advocate as an Enquiry Officer. Challenge is laid to the factum of appointment of a person who is not an employee of the organization-M/s Sindhi Academy as an Enquiry Officer and that the Enquiry Officer has to be a public servant which the Enquiry Officer is not.2. This case was argued yesterday and matter was listed today for further directions including on the asp...
Tag this Judgment!