Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
1. O.A.867 of 1998 is directed against the charge memo dated 18.8.1998 issued by the second respondent and O.A.920 of 1998 is directed against an order of suspension pending enquiry, dated 12.10.1998 passed under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The applicant belongs to IRS serving as Commissioner of Income Tax at Chennai. She had worked as Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax (Assessment), Special Range, Trichur during the period July 1985 to April 1994. It seems that when she was promoted as Commissioner and has been working as a Commissioner in Chennai. On 8.10.1996 a memorandum was issued to the applicant for certain acts of omission and commission said to have been committed by the applicant during the period from July 1985 to April 1994. According to the applicant out of 12,000 assessments made by the applicant during the said period, 25 cases were picked out as unsatisfactory and prejudicial from the revenue point of view and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)(1)SLJ209CAT
1. Shri Anil Kumar Jain has assailed the order dated 30.05.2003 (Annex.A/1), order dated 02.07.2004 (Annex. A/2) passed by the respondent No.2 and the memorandum of charges dated 14.07.99 and has prayed for declaring them as illegal as well as for quashing them with a further direction to the respondents to restore the withholding increments with all consequential benefits.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and have carefully perused the records and pleadings of this case. The brief facts of this case are that the applicant while working on the post of Inspector of Central Excise at Bhilwara in the year 1997, was issued with a charge sheet under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity Rules), vide memo dated 14.07.99. The same contained three articles of charges.He denied the allegations and submitted that the respondent No. 3 was not the Competent Authority to issue the memorandum of charges to him sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2613 of 2013 --- Nand Kishore Rai --- --- ---- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand 3. The Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: The Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner: Mr. Saurav Arun & Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, Advocate For the Resp-State: Mrs. Shweta Singh, JC to GP-V --- 09/ 23.07.2015 Heard counsel for the parties.2. By the impugned order bearing Memo No. 2219(S) dated 14.03.2013 (Annexure-6) issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, a new Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer have been appointed to inquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner in Departmental Proceeding vide Office Order No. 204 read with Memo No. 5863(S)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Nixon v. Fitzgerald - 457 U.S. 731 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) Nixon v. Fitzgerald No. 79-1738 Argued November 30, 1981 Decided June 24, 1982 457 U.S. 731 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus During the waning months of the Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968, respondent, a management analyst with the Department of the Air Force, testified before a congressional Subcommittee about cost overruns and unexpected technical difficulties concerning the development of a particular airplane. In January, 1970, during the Presidency of petitioner Richard M. Nixon, respondent was dismissed from his job during a departmental reorganization and reduction in force, in which his job was eliminated. Respondent complained to the Civil Service Commission, alleging that his separation represented unlawful retaliation for his congressional testimony. The Commission rejected this claim, but conc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1974]94ITR276(Bom); 1973MhLJ443
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This is a revision application filed by the original plaintiff against an order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, in Civil Suit No. 97 of 1966, rejecting his application dated August 5, 1968, objecting to issuance of summons to the income-tax and estate authorities at the instance of the defendant. 2. The applicant plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment and possession of the suit premises as well as the arrears of rent and mesne profits against the defendant. The defendant raised a plea that, though he is the tenant of the suit premises, the plaintiff is not entitled to file the proceedings or recover the rent from him, because the property in question belongs to the trust and the plaintiff is merely a trustee and cannot claim the rent or the property in his individual capacity. The plaintiff adduced his evidence and the defendant had also examined himself and thereafter applied for issuing summons to the income-tax authority as well as estate duty a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1954CriLJ366
ORDER1. This order shall govern the disposal of the following Miscellaneous Criminal Cases:No. 35/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Dr. S.M. Hasan and Ors.No. 36/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Shri Abhilas-Chandra.No. 37/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Dr. N.B. Khare and Ors.No. 38/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Swami K.N. Sokhta and Anr.No. 39/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Shri R.K. Shukla and Ors.No. 50/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Thakur Pyarelal Singh and Anr.No. 48/53: In re Shri Ramgopal Maheshwari and Anr.2. Shri M. V. Rajwade, I.A.S., who is the petitioner in the first six cases is the Deputy Commissioner, Durg. The last case was registered on a petition filed by the Deputy Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Nagpur. These petitions were filed under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, for taking action against the alleged contemners in respect of certain publications.3. Respondents in these cases are the authors and/or publishers of the impugned articles.(A) The authors concerned are-(1) Dr. S....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1983AP69
Chennakesav Reddy, J.1. Mohammad Ibrahim Khan, now know to the public as the 'King of Land Grabbers' is the petitioner in this writ petition. He disclosed to be public disturbing facts. He involved in the alleged acts of land grabbing some senior civilians and veteran political grandsires provoking a probe by a high power commission. He now seeks to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to interdict the proceeding of the commission of Inquiry, Land Grabbing, by the issue of 'writ mainly on the ground that the procedure followed by the commission is contrary to the provisions of the commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and the Rules made thereunder.2. By G.O. Ms. No. 146, General Administration (General-B) Department, dated 17th March, 1982 the Government of Andhra pradesh appointed a commission of Inquiry under the commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (central Act 60 of 1952) consisting of a single member viz., sri susheel Kumar, I.A.S. commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1961)IILLJ536AP
Narasimham, J.1. This Is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother Seshachelapati, J. In Writ Petition No. 316 of 1960 rejecting the prayer of the appellant; for the issuance of a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ, direction or order restraining the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings from proceeding with the enquiry against the appellant.2. The facts of the appellant's case are briefly these:-- The appellant was entertained in the revenue department on 11 March 1942. He worked as the deputy tahsildar, Sringavarapukota in Visakhapatnam district from 2 May 1954 to 6 December 1954 and from 16 May 1955 to 2 November 1955. He was promoted as tahsildar on 3 November 1955 and was continuing in that capacity. On complaints made to the authorities alleging that he had received illegal gratifications in granting taccavi loans when the appellant was the deputy tahsildar, the X Branch, C.I.D. enquired into the allegations and reported to the Government that there was suf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(1)ESC297; (2005)2UPLBEC1362
S. Rafat Alam, J.1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of the General Manager dated 17.10.2001 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service and also for quashing the order of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, dated 2.9.2002 dismissing his appeal against the above order.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner while working as Manager of the Kanpur Regional Office in the New India Assurance Company Ltd., was found to have committed irregularities/misconduct in respect of approval of claims of the insured during the period 1996-1998. Accordingly, the General Manager, who was his disciplinary authority, decided to proceed against him departmentally. Consequently, the departmental proceeding was initiated vide office order dated 11.2.2000 and he was placed under suspension. The memo of charges alongwith list of documents relied upon by the disciplinary autho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2009(I)OLR768
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties for payment of Family Pension to her under Rule-56 (19) of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 by setting Order No. 5 dated 12.10.2006 passed in O.A. No. 1999 (C) of 2006 by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack.2. The husband of the petitioner namely, Late Ramesh Ch. Pradhan was working as Senior Assistant in the Office of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (N.D.), Sambalpur and was suffering from mental depression from time to time and undergoing treatment at the V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital Burla in Psychiatric Department. On 20.2.1993 he resumed duty after being found fit and was attending office regularly. On 28.5.1993, he left his quarter to attend the morning office but did not come back. On enquiry by his wife, it was revealed that he did not attend the office on 28.5.93. A search was started for him in all probable places but he ...
Tag this Judgment!