Court : Allahabad
1. This writ petition having been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on restoration application, as requested by learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for hearing and is being decided finally. 2. Heard Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The executive authorities are supposed to execute policies of Government employing Rule of Law as laid down by Legislature and interpreted by this court. The incidental work which is also of equal importance is that those responsible for such execution must perform their job diligently, devotedly, honestly with ultimate goal of best public interest. Those who lack, should be made to suffer consequences. The later part, i.e., the consequences, ordinarily comes as a result of disciplinary proceedings conducted in accordance with Rules laying down procedure consistent with Article 311 of the Constitution and on the broad principle of administrative law....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Order dt:29. 5/2014 1/21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1207/2013 Naresh Pandya V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1204/2013 Ramesh Chandra Chourmar V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1205/2013 Jayendra Kumar Pandya V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.5. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1206/2013 Gebee Lal Meghwal V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.6. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1211/2013 Smt. Ramila Roat V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.7. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1212/2013 Narpat Singh Chouhan V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Date of Order :::29. h May, 2014 REPORTABLE PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the petitioners. Ms.R.R. Kanwar, for the respondents. --- BY THE COU...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC554; 1972LabIC313; (1972)ILLJ535SC; (1972)1SCC332; [1972]2SCR695
1. This appeal on certificate of fitness granted by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution is directed against its judgment and order dated May 6, 1971 dismissing the appellant's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The appellant joined the Indian Civil Service after being selected pursuant to his success at the competitive examination held in London in 1934. He underwent the necessary period of probation and was thereafter duly admitted to the said Service. He signed the necessary covenant with the then Secretary of State for India. He arrived in India on November 25, 1935. It is not disputed before us that according to Fundamental Rule 56(f) the appellant as a member of the Indian Civil Service had to retire after 35 years' of service counted from the date of his arrival in India subject to the proviso that if he had at the end 35 years' service held his post for less than five years, he might, with the sanction of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ49CAT
1. The applicant, Dr. Bhagwat Singh, while he was posted as Senior Divisional Medical Officer at Amritsar was caught red handed on 16.02.93 in a trap which was laid by a team of CBI officers while demanding and accepting a sum of Rs. 100 as illegal gratification from one Sri Ravi Bhushan, who was at that time working as Highly Skilled Fitter Grade II, Loco Workshop, Amritsar. A criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was registered against the applicant. After investigation, a final report was submitted. It was, however, decided to initiate departmental proceedings against the applicant. The competent authority while ordering the initiation of departmental enquiry against the applicant appointed Shri Geeta Ram, CDI/CVC by invoking provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as contemplated under Rule 9(1) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968--for short, the Rules of 1968, by order dated 31.10.97 (Annexure A/4).2. The statement ...
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 : Guwahati
Oral: 1. Heard Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel for Pollution Control Board, Assam. 2. By filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Syed Mahmud Ali, has challenged the office order dated 22.07.2013 imposing penalty of withholding 2 (two) Annual increments and debarring him from promotion for 3 (three) years under Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer in the Regional Office of the Pollution Control Board, Assam, at Nagan. On 05.12.2012 the Regional Executive Engineer being the in-charge of the aforesaid regional office received an application from one Dilmonjoy Bathori of M/s D. and J. Enterprise, Dima Hasao, for obtaining consent to establish an industry. According to the petitioner, upon receipt of the application dated 05.12.2012 the Regional Executive Engineer forwarded the application to him o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1972)IILLJ509Ker
P. Subramanian Poti, J.1. The petitioner is the II Member of the Board of Revenue of the Kerala State, now under suspension. Justice M. U, Isaac of This Court had been appointed as Commissioner under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to enquire into certain matters relating to the acquisition of land for the Kerala Agricultural University. In the light of the facts that came out in the enquiry conducted by Issac, J., Government contemplated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner Sri K.K. Ramankutty and this was communicated to him by a memo, dated 12-11-1971, the copy of which is Ext. P-2. Six charges were framed against the petitioner and his statement of defence was called for. At that stage the petitioner came to This Court seeking to quash Ext. P-2 memo of charges on the ground that the charges were, on the face of them, unsustainable. This Court felt that it was too premature to say that the charges were unsustainable and, therefore, the petition O.P. No. 5454 of 1971...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad735; 173Ind.Cas.251; (1937)2MLJ189
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. This appeal is from an order passed by Gentle, J., on two applications under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act praying for an order restraining the Collector of Salt Revenue, Madras, by a writ of prohibition from conducting or holding or proceeding with an enquiry into the conduct of the two applicants. The appellant was the applicant in No. 349 of 1937. The order passed by Gentle, J., covered the contentions of both of the applicants which were identical. An interim injunction had been granted on the 8th February. Gentle, J., by his order dissolved that injunction, discharged the rule nisi and dismissed the applications.2. The appellant is an Assistant Commissioner of Salt and Customs, Central Division, Madras, to which office he was appointed on the 16th March, 1936, before which date he was Inspector of Salt and Customs, Negapatam. Certain charges had been made against the appellant and an enquiry under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classific...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 9.7.2013, by which his Complaint (ULP) No.5/2008 has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner is a Civil Engineer. He has been issued with a show cause notice on 30.3.2007. He retired on 1.4.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. A chargesheet setting out the charges against the petitioner is dated 24.7.2007, which is obviously issued after the retirement of the petitioner. 4. The issue, therefore, raised before this Court is as to whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated after the retirement of an employee. The issue raised is no longer res integra in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank and another v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (AIR 2007 SC 2129). 5. Considering the above, having heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length on 7.12.2015 and again today, I am to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(1)BomCR303
B.U. Wahane, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Shirishkumar Rangrao Patil, has questioned the legality, propriety, justifiability and bona fides of the order dismissing the petitioner from the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, First Class, passed on 2-3-1994, by the respondent No. 1.2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner after obtaining the Degree of Bachelor of Law from Marathwada University at Aurangabad, enrolled himself as an Advocate and started legal practice at Parola in District Jalgaon from 9th June, 1980 till 19th February, 1984. He was appointed as Police Prosecutor and worked as such from 20th February, 1984 to 30th April, 1988 in Jalgaon District in the courts at Yawal and Ravel as also in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jalgaon. On being selected by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division-cum-Judicial Magistrat...
Tag this Judgment!