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 : 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 : 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!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!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 135(2006)DLT346
ORDERIt has been decided to constitute a departmental committee to look into an alleged case of harassment made by Smt. Vinita Tiwari, AG-III, E.No.32650 against Sh. Sandeep Khurana, AG-III. The complaint committee shall consist of the following members:1. Smt. Kavita Sharma, Manager (SS&NP;) - Chairman2. Smt. Rajrani Mehta, PS to GM (Const.) - Member3. Sh. M.K. Chowdhury, AM (Vig.) - Member4. Sh. P. Narayanan, AM (F) EB - Member Secy. The Committee shall look into the charges from the vigilance angle also and submit its report within 7 days. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.Sd/- (M.M. Gupta)DY. MANAGER.(A)IICopy to:1. Director (HR)2. GM (A)3. All members of the Committee.6. Conspicuously the copy of this order was not sent to the petitioner. The Committee issued a notice to the petitioner on 24.11.2004. No copy of any complaint or report or any memorandum or any statement of articles of charges was enclosed with this notice. It was simply one sentence notice as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 48(1992)DLT140; 1992(1)DRJ24
Sat Pal, J.(1) This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') is directed against First Information. Report bearing crime No.RCI(A)/90/ACU-IV registered against certain unnamed persons and three named persons, namely, S/Shri Martin Ardgo, former President of Bofors A.B. (for short called 'Bofors'), G.P.Hinduja of London and the petitioner W.N. Chadha @ Win Chadha alleging commission of offences under sections 120B read with Sections 161, 162, 163, 164 and 165A of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 5(2)/5(l)(d) and 5(2)/5(l)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with sections 409, 420, 463 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. In the writ petition the petitioner, inter alia, has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid First Information Report and the proceedings and the orders passed thereon and arising there from including the letter rogatory issued by the Specia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VIAD(Delhi)245; 70(1997)DLT424; 1997(43)DRJ350
Usha Mehra, J. (1) RULE. (2) Since a short point is involved in this writ petitioner hence it was taken up for disposal. (3) The petitioner has assailed the order of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority thereby directing withholding of promotion for a period of five years from the date she reported for duty i.e. 28th June, 1993 and further the period of her absence from duty from 7th March, 1990 to 27th June, 1993 be treated as break in service under Fr 17(A) and Rule 28 of the Ccs (Pension) Rules. (4) That the impugned order has been assailed primarily on the ground that while imposing the said penalty the disciplinary authority did not afford any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard nor the report of the Enquiry Officer was supplied to her. Moreover, the procedure as laid down under the rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner had not been followed. The disciplinary authority without disagreeing specifically with the finding of the Enquiry Officer imp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 119(2005)DLT72; 2005(81)DRJ124; 2006(1)SLJ261(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this Writ Petition it has been prayed that the Order dated 24.6.2002 imposing punishment of forfeiture of one increment with cumulative effect as well as the transfer of the Petitioner from the National Headquarters to Arakonam, Tamil Nadu be quashed; the Order dated 3.9.2000 terminating the services of the Petitioner be quashed and the Petitioner be reinstated with all consequential benefits.2. The first incident which has been narrated in the petition and relied upon pertains to the Respondent's Memorandum dated 15.5.2002, bringing to the notice of the Petitioner that he had been 'arrogant and indecent', and 'rude and defiant' in his behavior to his superior, Colonel A.S. Budhiraja. Thereafter, by Memorandum dated 30.5.2002 other alleged misconducts were brought within the scope of the Inquiry. In my view it would be superfluous to go into the details for the reason that the Petitioner has admitted all these charges, attributing his misbehavior to mental strai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997IAD(Delhi)289; 65(1997)DLT200; 1996(39)DRJ700
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) By order dated 4th October, 1996, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 120B/195/469/471 Indian Penal Code issued non-bailable warrants against S/Shri P.V.Narasimha Rao, K.K.Tewari, K.L.Verma and Larry J.Kolb. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed this petition for setting aside the same alleging it to be in violation of the procedure established by law under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short referred to as 'the Code'-). (2) The petitioner at the time of commission of the alleged offence was working as the Director in the Directorate of Enforcement and it is alleged against him that he and the other accused persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the object of fabricating certain false records/evidence intending to have S/Shri V.P.Singh and/or Ajeya Singh convicted under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and/or Prevention of Corruption Act and to harm their reputation. ...
Tag this Judgment!