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 : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2007)(2)SLJ322CAT
1. Applicant Shri H.R. Megh is an IAS officer of 1990 batch allocated to the State of Punjab. He is aggrieved by the Memorandum of Chargesheet dated 26.6.2006, whereby inquiry under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, was ordered against him.The charge imputed against him was that when posted as Director, Consolidation, Punjab, Jalandhar in the year 1997, he accepted the petition of Sarpanch of Village Sahni, Tehsil Phagwara, Distt.Kapurthala under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1942 and allowed exchange of 7 acres of Gram Panchayat land with 4 acres of private land, putting the Panchayat to a great loss. It has been alleged in the Charge Memo that petition under Section 42 can be filed only for removal and rectification of patent mistake in the consolidation proceedings done at the time of consolidation, while there was no such mistake. Exchange of Gram Panchayat land with private land could be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5042/2016 PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA Reserved on:6. h December, 2016 Date of Decision:27. h March, 2017 ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Dinesh S. Badiar, Advocate. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Ms.Sangita Rai, Central Government Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR % CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.The petitioner by way of this writ petition under Articleof the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 15.07.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, dismissing Original Application No.4214/2011.2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was employed as a Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC) and was thereafter promoted to the post of W.P. (C) No.5042/2016 Page 1 of 26 Upper Divisional Clerk (UDC) in the Head Quarters of the Intelligence Bureau at New Delhi.3. The petitioner had submitted an application dated 08.04.2010 seeking cancellation of the casu...
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 : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker279; (1960)IILLJ398Ker; (1960)IILLJ398Ker
ORDERS.Velu Pillai, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of Ext. P-6, an order dated 24-1-1959, passed by the respondent, the Government of the State of Kerala removing him from service as a Sub-Inspector of Police. A petition of complaint against him for alleged misconduct, was presented to the then Minister for Law by one Radhamma, upon which, pending enquiry, he was suspended from service on 17-2-1958. Preliminary enquiries having been made thereon, Government ordered, by notification dated 7-3-1958. 'a detailed departmental enquiry under the Kerala Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957', which may be referred to hereafter as the Kerala Rules, to be held on the complaint for 'indecent behaviour and misconduct' on his part, and committed the enquiry to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge who may he referred to hereafter as the Commissioner. Upon the complaint, the Commissioner framed a char...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP497
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the order passed by the Government dated 26-6-1958 in G. O. Ms. No. 1584 dismissing him from service on a charge of corruption and irregularities in court work. For a proper appreciation o the contentions raised the facts relating to suspension and dismissal of the petitioner and the writ petition and appeal to' the Supreme Court filed by him prior to this petition may be enumerated.2. The petitioner was recruited to the Madras Judicial Service as a District Munsif in 1935 and in 1949 he was promoted to the office of the Subordinate Judge and pasted at Masulipatam on 19-6-1950. The charge of bribery levelled against him was with respect to two connected suits tried by him, O. S. No. 95 of 1946 and O. S. No. 24 of 1949. On 27-7-1950, the trial having concluded, arguments were heard and judgment was reserved. On 10-8-1950, petitions were filed to re-hear the cases, which were allowed and, after hearing the parties, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1959Bom320; (1959)61BOMLR220; ILR1959Bom952
Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal raises several important questions concerning the provisions of the new Companies Act of 1956. The facts which are necessary to state are very few. The appellant, who is also the petitioner, is the managing agent of a limited company called the Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. On 15-11-1954 the Registrar of Companies called for an explanation from the Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., and the Registrar stated in his letter that it had been represented to him under Section 137(6) of the Indian Companies Act that the business of the company was carried on in fraud and he had therefore to call upon the company to furnish the information which he required which was set out in the latter part of the letter. On 15-4-1955 the Registrar made a report to the Central Government. This report was made under Section 137(5) of the old Companies Act and the report was that the affairs of the company were carried out in fraud of contributories and he was of the opinion that the affairs ...
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!