Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2001(90)FLR788]; 2001LabIC3975; (2001)2UPLBEC1676
R.B. Mishra, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition No. 7133 of 2001 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the ex parte Inquiry report and for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect or not to take any action against the petitioner on the basis of the ex parte inquiry report against him. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to get the Inquiry conducted, if any, against the petitioner through any competent authority of any department other than the present one which is under the ministry of Sri Markandey Chand, the Minister for Rural Engineering Services and Minor Irrigation Department Government of U. P. The petitioner has made initially five respondents, e.g., (i) The Chief Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh. (ii) Sri Markandey Chand. Minister for Rural Engineering Services and Minor Irrigation Department. (iii) The Secretary. Minor Irrigation Department and Rural Engineering Services, (iv) Sri AJai Kuma...
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 : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR46; 2004(1)BomCR88; 2003(4)MhLj423
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. A.S. Rao, learned Counsel, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. This petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner, vide charge-sheet dated January 12, 2001 issued by the Commissioner of Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation, respondent No. 2 herein, as the same are illegal, unauthorized, without jurisdiction and non est.3. The case of the petitioner is that he is holding the post of Assistant Municipal Commissioner in respondent No. 2 Corporation. Several allegations had been levelled against him and 17 charges were framed. An inquiry was initiated by respondent No. 2 who appointed enquiry Officer to conduct departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to respondent No. 2 on 9th January, 2003 and final notice as to why the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker294
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The petitioner, who had been a Range Officer in the former Travancore-Cochin State service, has tiled this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, to set aside the order Ext. P1, passed by the respondent, the State of Kerala, on 4-7-1958, reducing him in rank and barring his promotion for a period of two years, He had been ordered to be punished on the same allegations against him by an earlier order Ext. P2, passed by the Government of Travancore-Cochin; but at the hearing of Original Petition 310 of 1956, which had been preferred by him to this court to quash Ext. P2, counsel for the contending parties agreed, that the case against the petitioner might be examined by the Government after consulting the Public Service Commission and that the petitioner might move again under Article 226, should the need arise; the contentions raised were left undecided. Now that the second order also has gone against the petitioner, he has filed this petition.2. Havi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1074; JT1993(6)SC1; (1994)ILLJ162SC; 1993(3)SCALE952; (1993)4SCC727; [1993]Supp2SCR576; 1993(3)SLJ193(SC)
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. This group of matters is at the instance of various parties, viz., Union of India, Public Sector Corporations, Public Sector banks, State Governments and two private parties. By an order dated 5th August, 1991 in Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India v. B.Karunakar : (1992)1SCC709 , a three Judge Bench of this Court referred that matter to the Chief Justice for being placed before a Larger Bench, for the Bench found a conflict in the two decisions of this Court, viz., Kailash Chander Asthana etc. etc. v. State of U.P. and Ors. etc. etc. : (1988)IILLJ219SC , and Union of India and Ors. etc. etc. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan : (1991)ILLJ29SC both delivered by the Benches of three learned Judges. Civil Appeal No. 3056 of 1991 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12103 of 1991 along with the other matters in which the same question of law is in issue, has therefore, been referred to this Bench.2. The basis question of law which arises in these matters is whether the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD823; 2006(1)ALT661; (2006)IILLJ448AP; 2007(1)SLJ459(NULL)
ORDERJ. Chelameswar, J.I had the advantage of going through the judgments rendered by both my learned brothers. Both of them arrived at the same conclusion, but for slightly different reasons.I agree with the conclusion reached.P.S. Narayana, J.1. I prefer to add a couple of sentences of my own while agreeing with the conclusion of my learned brother. The importance of a disciplinary enquiry or departmental enquiry in Service Jurisprudence need not be overemphasized. In view of the importance of the question involved in the present matter, the Division Bench thought it fit to refer the matter thus inviting a decision on the said point. The learned Counsel on record made elaborate submissions in relation to the language employed in Rule 19 of the A. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963, and Rule 20 of the amended Rules of 1991. Certain submissions were made even in relation to the meaning of 'cause to be drawn' and also incidentally Rule 21 of the 1991 Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(2)ESC1158; (2005)2UPLBEC1328
Sabhajeet Yadav, J.1. The facts of the case in brief are that while working as Collection Amin in the revenue department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, a FIR was registered against the petitioner along with five other persons Under Section 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC, at Police Station Jam, District Meerut. After trial of the aforesaid case all the six persons including the petitioner were convicted by court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut vide judgment and order dated 30.6.1984. According to the petitioner, on account of his conviction Under Section 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C., in the aforesaid criminal case his services were terminated vide order dated 10.12.1987 passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Meerut. Against the order of conviction and sentence dated 30.6.1984, the petitioner and other convicted persons have preferred an appeal before this Court, which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 1772 of 1984. On 4.4.1996 the aforesaid appeal was allowed by Division Ben...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(3)ALD887
P.S. Narayana, J. 1. The writ petition is filed by the unsuccessful applicant as against an order made in O.A. No. 8965/ 98 dated 4-12-2003 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal in short referred to as 'Tribunal' hereinafter wherein the proceedings issued in G.O. Rt. No. 1044, T.R. and B(Ser. T.3) Department, dated 28-11-1998 had been assailed.2. Sri Venkata Sastry, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, in detail had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties before the Tribunal, the impugned order and had pointed out that the whole enquiry is vitiated for the reason that the same had not been conducted in accordance with the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, in short referred to as 'present Rules' hereinafter and had been conducted in accordance with the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963, hereinafter referred to as 'old Rules' and hence the Counsel would maintain that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(6)ALD500; 2006(6)ALT771
Ramesh Ranganathan, J. 1. Aggrieved by the interlocutory order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 2414 of 2006 dated 27.4.2006, whereby the petitioner was directed not to dismiss the 1st respondent-applicant from service, on the basis of the judgment of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, in C.C. No. 40 of 2000 dated 4.3.2006, pending further orders, the present writ petition is filed by the Municipal Corporation of Guntur.2. Brief facts, to the extent necessary, are that the 1st respondent-applicant was working as a Junior Assistant in the Municipal Corporation, Guntur. Consequent upon a trap laid by the A.C.B, while the 1st respondent-applicant was demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 800/- to do an official favour, a case was registered against her in C.C. No. 40 of 2000 before the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada. The Special Judge, by order dated 4.3.2006, convicted the 1st respondent-applicant under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R Reserved on :12. 09.2024 Pronounced on :24. 09.2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE24H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.22356 OF2024(GM RES) BETWEEN: SHRI SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT78YEARS S/O SHRI SIDDARAME GOWDA HONBLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KARNATAKA RESIDING AT NO.6, CAUVERY CRESCENT BENGALURU 560 001. ... PETITIONER (BY DR. ABHISHEK MANU SINGHVI, A/W., PROF. RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHATHABISH SHIVANNA, SRI SAMRUDH S.HEGDE, AND SRI ABHISHEK J., ADVOCATES) AND:1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA2BENGALURU 560 001. 2 . THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA RAJ BHAVAN, BENGALURU 560 001. 3 . MR. ABRAHAM T. J., RESIDING AT ASHIRVAD23262ND A CROSS, 16 B MAIN HAL2D STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU 560 008. 4 . SRI SNEHAMAYI KRISHNA AGED ABOUT54YEARS S/O LATE SIDDAPPA RESIDING AT NO.335, BANDIPALYA GANAPATHY ASHRAMA POST MYSURU ...
Tag this Judgment!