Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1966CriLJ1106
Gyanendra Kumar, J.1. In this case the opponent, who is a member of the Socialist Party, had addressed a personal letter dated 25.7.1964 in a closed envelope to Sri Mathuresh Narain, Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor. However, it was written on the official letter-head of the Party. It made reference to three cases - two of which had already been decided by the Magistrate, while the third one was still pending. The letter stated that in the complaint case of Alladia v. Mahkar Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Seohara, the opponent had appeared as a witness for the complainant under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The opponent alleged that the Magistrate did not like his appearing as a witness against the Police Sub-Inspector. He further alleged that in spite of the fact that there was prima facie evidence in the case, the Magistrate did not summon the Sub-Inspector as an accused, with the result that notwithstanding that his complaint was true, the said Alladia had to get ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2002)2MLJ15
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The prayer in the main writ petition is for certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in Charge No. 15 of 2001, dated 30.8.2001 and quash the same.2. The prayer in the writ miscellaneous petition, W.M.P. No. 28223 of 2001, is to stay all further proceedings in charge No. 15/2001, dated 30.8.2001 of the second respondent, pending disposal of the main writ petition. In this writ miscellaneous petition, on 12.10.2001, D. Murugesan, J. on being prima facie satisfied, following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena , wherein it has been held, 'that where criminal as well as disciplinary actions were grounded on the same facts, the stay of disciplinary action would be justified', granted stay of further proceedings in charge No. 15 of 2001, dated 30.8.2001, of the second respondent pending further orders.3. W.M.P. No. 32054 of 2001 has been f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1973All458
Satish Chandra, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the State and the officials of its education department, It is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge, whereby he quashed an order appointing an authorised controller for the Arva Kanva Inter College, Jhansi. 2. On 21st April. 1971, the Director of Education U. P. served upon the Manager of the College a notice purporting to be under Section 16-D (2) of the U, P. Intermediate Education Act. It enumerated 19 irregularities and defects in the working of the institution, and stated that the mentioned irregularities made it clear that the management of the college was not being conducted properly and that the instructions issued by the Department were being repeatedly evaded. It required the institution to remedy the defects and to submit an explanation under Section 16-D (2). The management submitted a detailed explanation on 14th May. 1971. Thereafter, the Director made some further queries by his letter dated May 26. 1...
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
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 : Mumbai
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking a writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside FIR no. 26(A)/2010 which is registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation for the offences punishable under section 120B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (For short "PC Act") 2. Brief facts are as under:- FACTS 3. Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in the year 1997 and was later on promoted to the post of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 03/02/2005 with effect from 23/10/2003. 4. Sometime in 2008, one Mr. Vijay Patil, President, Maharashtra Kamgar Ekta Union made a complaint to the Petitioner regarding evasion of employees provident fund contribution of 2000 employees of M/s Pratibha Industries Limited. An inquiry was initiated by the Petitioner on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971AP234
Vaidya, J.1. The petitioner joined service in the Co-operative Department in the year 1953 as Senior Inspector at Eluru. He was promoted as Sub Registrar of Co-operative Societies in February 1961 and was the business Manager of the West Godavari District Co-operative Marketing Federation. Eluru from 9-12-61. While he was discharging his duties, according to the petitioner, honestly to the satisfaction of his superiors, the State of Andhra Pradesh respondent No. 1 on 29-8-1966 referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings. Government of Andhra Pradesh respondent No. 2 for enquiry and report under Section 4 of the A. P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act. 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Disciplinary Tribunals Act) certain allegations of misconduct against the petitioner. The 2nd respondent on 18-9-1966 framed three charges against the petitioner. Those charges are:'That the charged officer while working as Co-operative Sub-Registrar Business Manager of ...
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!