Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE06H DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.15582 OF2022(GM-RES) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7430 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7431 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7473 OF2022WRIT PETITION NO.10313 OF2023(GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10335 OF2023(GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10363 OF2023(GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10549 OF2023(GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10585 OF2023(GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10676 OF2023(GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10825 OF2023(GM-RES) IN WRIT PETITION No.15582 OF2022(GM-RES) BETWEEN:1. SRI ASHOK M. S., S/O SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT50YEARS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE TRAFFIC NORTH EAST, R/AT NO.617 SVS PATELS CALLISTO APARTMENT JALA CAUVERY LAYOUT AMRUTHAHALLI BENGALURU 560 092.2. SRI B.S.SRINIVAS., S/O R.L.SHIVARAME GOWDA AGED ABOUT53YEARS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE2TRAFFIC SOUTH SUB DIVISION BENGALURU, R/AT NO.597, 7TH MAIN11H CROSS, J.P.NAGAR, 3RD PHASE BENGALURU 560 078.3. SRI ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(3)ALD625; 2001(5)ALT228
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J 1. In this writ petition,the petitioner, who was serving at the relevant point of time as Deputy Nazir in the Court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Excise), Karimnagar, has assailed the validity of the disciplinary action taken by the 2nd respondent, the District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, dated 1-8-1996 and order of the 1st respondent - High Court of Andhra Pradesh, confirming the above order of the learned District and Sessions Judge.2. Few relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are to be noted briefly as under:The petitioner while working as Deputy Nazir in the above Court was kept under suspension by order dated 27-12-1995 and subsequently the learned District and Sessions Judge, the disciplinary authority, appointed the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Karimnagar as Enquiry Officer to hold a regular departmental enquiry after framing the charges. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer framed a charge on 4-3-1996, which is as fo...
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 : 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 : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE06H DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.15582 OF2022(GM-RES) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7430 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7431 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7473 OF2022WRIT PETITION NO.10313 OF2023(GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10335 OF2023(GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10363 OF2023(GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10549 OF2023(GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10585 OF2023(GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10676 OF2023(GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10825 OF2023(GM-RES) IN WRIT PETITION No.15582 OF2022(GM-RES) BETWEEN:1. SRI ASHOK M. S., S/O SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT50YEARS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE TRAFFIC NORTH EAST, R/AT NO.617 SVS PATELS CALLISTO APARTMENT JALA CAUVERY LAYOUT AMRUTHAHALLI BENGALURU 560 092.2. SRI B.S.SRINIVAS., S/O R.L.SHIVARAME GOWDA AGED ABOUT53YEARS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE2TRAFFIC SOUTH SUB DIVISION BENGALURU, R/AT NO.597, 7TH MAIN11H CROSS, J.P.NAGAR, 3RD PHASE BENGALURU 560 078.3. SRI ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(2)AWC1073
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. In these cases common questions of law and fact are involved and counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavits have also been exchanged and filed by the parties. Therefore, as desired by the learned counsel for the parties'as well as looking to the importance of the subject-matter in dispute, these petitions were heard finally at this stage and are being disposed of by means of this common judgment.2. By means of Writ Petition No. 3506 (S/S) of 1998, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorariquashing the order dated 4.8.98 passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikan, Unnao, appointing authority/ disciplinary authority, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from the post of Assistant Teacher, in the Primary School Laharkhera, Gramin Kshetra-Sarosi, district Unnao, established and run by U. P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad (for short 'the School').3. Relevant facts of the case as unfolded in the writ petition are that the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1988P& H1
D.S. Tewatta, J.1. Petitioner Shri J. K. Dhir, who at the relevant time happened to be Superintending Engineer, Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal Project (for short 'SYL Canal Project'), petitioner Shri A. K. Ummat, who at the relevant time happened to be Chief Engineer (Co-ordination) of the SYL Canal Project and petitioner Shri D. P. Singla, who retired as Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) on 30th April, 1986, and at the relevant time was associated with 'SYL Canal Project' asExecutive Engineer and was later on (on being promoted on 9th June, 1982),as Superintending Engineer (Administration) Accounts SYL Canal Project at Chandigarh, have through separate writ petitions (C. W:P. No. 6298 of 1986, C.W.P. No. 6558 of 1986 and C.W.P. No. 6308 of 1986, respectively) have impugned the validity of the initiation of the departmental inquiry and. its continuation at the instance of the Vigilance Department of the Punjab Government on the ground of its incompetency an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2319; [2002(95)FLR451]; JT2001(Suppl1)SC70; 2001LabIC1805; (2002)IIILLJ1124SC; 2001(3)SCALE659; (2001)6SCC392; [2001]3SCR375; 2001(2)SCT1091(SC); 2001(3)SLJ421(SC)
B.N. Agrawal, J.1. Judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a writ application dismissing the same has been challenged it this appeal whereby order passed by Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal quashing order of dismissal of the respondent no. 1 from service has been upheld.2. Respondent No. 1 - Harendra Arora (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent'), who was temporarily appointed in the year 1960 as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the Uttar Pradesh Government , was confirmed on the said post and in the year 1963 he was promoted as Executive Engineer. On 31.3.1970 the respondent was served with a chargesheet by the Administrative Tribunal incorporating therein various irregularities committed by him with regard to the purchase of goods while he was posted as Executive Engineer at the concerned station, requiring him to submit his explanation relating thereto which was duly submitted. Upon receipt of the show cause, full-fledged enqui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC779; (1963)ILLJ239SC; [1963]Supp1SCR648
Shah, J.1. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra - hereinafter called 'the respondent' - was a permanent non-gazetted employee of the State of Orissa in the Registration Department and was posted at the material time as a Sub-Registrar at Sambalpur. Information was received by the Government of the State of Orissa that the respondent was habitually receiving illegal gratification and that he was possessed of property totally disproportionate to his income. The case of the respondent was referred by order of the Governor of Orissa to the Administrative Tribunal constituted under r. 4(1) of the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1951 framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Art. 309 of the Constitution. The Tribunal held an enquiry in the presence of the respondent on two charges (1) relating to five specific heads charging the respondent with having received illegal gratification and (2) relating to possession of means disproportionate to his income as a Sub-Registrar. The ...
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!