Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1964CriLJ362
ORDERN.U. Beg, J.1. This is an application Under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The applicant is Dr. Ganga Baksh Singh and the opposite parties are (1) Dr. J. C. Sharma, Principal, National Homeopathic Medical Collage, Lucknow (2) Dr. Daya Nand, Member U. P. Homeopathic Medicine Board, Lucknow and (3) Dr. A. P. Arora, Member, U. P. Homeopathic Medicine Board, Lucknow.The facts giving rise to this application may be briefly stated as follows:On the 7th of February, 1961 an application signed by a number of persons was made to the Registrar, Homeopathic Medicine Board, U. P. Lucknow alleging that Dr. J. C. Sharma, opposite party No. 1 who was principal of the National Homoeopathic College, Lucknow and a member of the Management Board of the said coJIegei, had obtained scholarship from the U. P. Government for higher studies by making certain false representations regarding his qualifications and had also succeeded in securing his post in National Homeopathic College, Lucknow in...
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 : Kerala
Reported in : (1971)IILLJ261Ker
P. Naryana Pillai, J.1. For inquiring into the truth of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour against the petitioner who is a member of the Indian Police Service, borne on the Kerala cadre, the State Government, which is the disciplinary authority and the first respondent in this petition, appointed under Rule 8(2) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 first, Shri R. Gopala Shenoy and later Shri P.A. Quadir Meeran, the second respondent, as the inquiring authority. The presenting officer appointed by the first respondent to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge represented before Shri. R. Gopala Shenoy that it would not be possible to secure the attendance of all witnesses unless coercive steps were issued to them. As the All India Services Rules did not provide for taking coercive steps against unwilling witnesses to secure their attendance before the inquiring authority Shri R. Gopala Shenoy wrote to the Secretary in charge of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1956P& H58
Bhandari, C.J.1. The principal point for decision, which has been somewhat obscured by the raising of a number of subsidiary issues, is whether the petitioner was denied the constitutional privilege of being heard before the order of dismissal was passed.2. The petitioner in this case is one Sardar Kapur Singh who until lately was a member of the Indian Civil Service and employed as a Deputy Commissioner in the Punjab in a substantive permanent capacity. He was placed under suspension on 13-4-1949 and a written statement of charges was handed over to him in due course. Weston J. the then Chief Justice of this Court was requested to hold an inquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, on 18-5-1950 and he submitted his report on 14-5-1951.He found that the petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 16,000/- and that he had knowingly permitted a certain contractor to cheat Government to the extent of Rs. 30,000/-. A copy of this report was supplied to the petitioner on 11-2-1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(6)ALD18; 2001(5)ALT543
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Constitutionality of Rule 153(8) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') is in question in this appeal. 2. The appellant herein who was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the Railway Protection Force and subsequently was promoted as Inspector, was placed under suspension on 18-9-1995 on the allegation that he made excess delivery of scrapworth about Rs.10,000/-. A departmental proceeding has been initiated against him wherein he seeks to engage a friend to defend his case. 3. The Parliament enacted the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to provide for the constitution and regulation of an armed force of the Union for the better protection and security of railway property and for matters connected therewith. Section 21 of the said Act provides for the rule making power inter alia for regulating the punishments and prescribing authorities to whom appeal shall be preferred from orders of pun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1948)50BOMLR649
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the Federal Court of India dated May 4, 1945, which varied a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated March 27, 1944.2. The respondent, who had been a member of the Indian Civil Service since 1922, instituted the present suit on July 20, 1942, against the Secretary of State for India, challenging the validity of an order by the latter dated August 10, 1940, which purported to remove the respondent from the Indian Civil Service,3. The Secretary of State for India was the original appellant in this appeal, but, after the hearing before this Board in July last, the Indian Independence Act, 1947, came into operation on August 15, 1947. By Section 15(2) of the Act, the present appeal by the Secretary of State was abated, and by Section 15(2) the appeal was continued by the High Commissioner. By Sub-section (3) of that section, the expression 'the High Commissioner' is defined for the purposes of the section. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Anil Kumar, J.1. The point for determination in the present writ petition is 'whether a retired employee of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) could be appointed as an enquiry officer in a disciplinary enquiry' under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965] which was initiated against the petitioner who was an Assistant Commissioner in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) Regional Office, Lucknow.2. Sh. Indre Singh, a retired Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries of the Central Vigilance Commission was appointed by the Vice Chairman of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) on 17th June, 2008 as an enquiry officer in the Disciplinary proceedings, which were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the appointment of a retired officer as enquiry officer in the Original Application filed by the petitioner being O.A. No. 1699 of 2008. On account of conflicting views of various Benches...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal raises the question regarding the validity of a departmental inquiry, under rule 14 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 held and conducted by an Inquiry Officer who was not a serving officer but whose name was taken from a panel of retired officers prepared for the purpose of holding departmental inquiries.3. The respondent was an employee of the Geological Survey of India (hereafter `GSI') and at the material time he was holding a Group `B' post. He was due to superannuate from service on November 30, 2000. On November 24, 2000, he was served with a show cause notice dated November 23, 2000 in connection with various charges and asking him to give his explanation within a week. The respondent gave his reply to the show cause notice but it was not found satisfactory and a charge-sheet was issued against him. One Shri S.M.M.V. Krishna Rao, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer who was selected from a panel of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~58. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision:31. 01.2013 % W.P.(C) No.7748/2010 S.K.TAQI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. M.Y. Khan, Advocate versus THE CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the industrial award passed by the Labour Court dated 31.03.2010 in ID No.2323/95, whereby the Labour Court X has answered the following reference made by the appropriate government against the petitioner/workman: Whether the dismissal of services of Shri S.K. Taqi is illegal and/or unjustified, and if so, to what directions are necessary in this regard? 2. The petitioner also assails the order dated 07.11.2009 passed by the Labour Court in the course of the proceedings before it, whereby the Labour Court has ruled that the departmental enquiry conducted against t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7649/2015 % UNION OF INDIA & ANR Reserved on:22. d March, 2017 Date of Decision:25. h August, 2017 ........ Petitioner Through Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Advocate. SUNNY ABRAHAM versus ..... Respondent Through Mr. Shanker Raju and Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocates. W.P.(C) 215/2016 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ........ Petitioner Through Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Advocate. SHRI PAVAN VED & ANR versus ..... Respondent Through Mr. Puneet Jain and Ms. Christi Jain, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.In view of similarity of the issue raised, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, we would be noticing the facts separately.2. The issue raised in these writ petitions relate to the effect and the impact of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. B.V. Gopinath, 2014 (1) SCC351 In the said decision the Supreme Court had examined Rule 14...
Tag this Judgment!