Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3357; 2003(4)ALLMR(SC)1210; 2003(3)BLJR2020; JT2003(Suppl1)SC335; 2003(7)SCALE524; (2003)8SCC361
Brijesh Kumar, J. 1. In this appeal, preferred by the State of Bihar, ultimately the question which falls for consideration is the effect of non-compliance of all time tested and ancient principle of natural justice. One cannot be condemned unheard is one of the attributes of the principles of natural justice, which operates even in absence of a written provision under the law. Though in the case in hand there is such a provision which, according to the appellant, was not necessary to be complied with, but the High Court of Patna has held to the contrary. It relates to applicability of Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (60 of 1952) (for short 'the Act'). 2. In the year 1989 some communal riots took place in Bhagalpur District, State of Bihar, resulting in many deaths and left some others injured. Undoubtedly, it was a matter of concern and the State Government decided to constitute a Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of the Act, which reads as under: '3. Appointmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1955P& H1
ORDER1. This rule is obtained by the petitioner against an order of dismissal passed against him by the Punjab Government dated 25-8-1053 (Annexure 'Q' attached to the petition).2. The petitioner was a temporary Engineer, in the Irrigation Department and he was called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the service for having secured his appointment fraudulently by making a wrong statement in his application dated 9-9-1946 in which he stated that he had passed the examination of A. M. I. Mech. E. which as a matter of fact he had not passed. On 6-12-1950 the petitioner was charge-sheeted and in the statement of reasons relating to Charge No. 1 it was stated: 'In your application (or the post of a Temporary Engineer (Mechanical) in the P. W. D., Irrigation Branch, dated 9-9-46 under item No. 21 which reads as follows:'Give particulars of all Examinations passed and degrees and technical qualifications obtained at the University or other places of higher education or in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1955P& H03
ORDERKapur, J. 1. This is a rule obtained by Fyara Singh Mulla, who was at one time a Senior Clerk in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, for a writ of 'certiorari' and for a mandamus to quash the orders of the Punjab Government dismissing the petitioner and tor a direction to reinstate the petitioner.2. Pyara Singh Mulla was appointed a Senior Clerk on 5-10-1948 and on 30-7-1952 he was suspended by an order of Mr. Nawab Singh Chief Secretary of the Punjab Government and on the same day he was given a charge-sheet to put in his defence in regard to two matters -- (1) that he shouted at the Chief Secretary saying that he did not care for him, and (2) abused him filthily in public outside the Secretariat merely because he had been pulled up by the Chief Secretary for making a speech. Mr. Gian Singh Kahlon, the Home Secretary, was appointed the officer tit make the necessary enquiry under the rules.3. In support of one of the charges one Amar Chand, an Assistant Secretary in the Secretariat, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(4)Raj2865; 2004(2)WLC436
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This writ petition has been presented in the Registry of this Court on 22.12.2000. The petitioner has primarily challenged impugned orders An-nex.62 dated 4.5.1991 whereby pursuant to a departmental enquiry the Appointing Authority has imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service and Annex.64 dated 21.7.1992 whereby the appellate authority maintained the penalty order. On its face, the writ petition suffers from gross delay and, therefore, at the outset this Court called upon the counsel for the petitioner to show sufficient cause why this petition may not be dismissed only on the ground of laches.2. The gruelling narration of the facts leadings to delay in filing the writ petition is that on accrual of the cause of action, after dismissal of his appeal by the appellate authority, the petitioner engaged Shri Vinayak M. Joshi, Advocate and handed over him the file alongwith all relevant material. He also made payment of the full fees and expenses. It i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1970Bom413; (1970)72BOMLR320; 1970MhLJ780
1. These two appeals arise out of almost identical facts and raise a common question of law for decision. They arise out of two applications filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') before the Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay, (hereinafter referred to as the 'E. I. Court'), under Section 75(2) of the Employees' 'State Insurance Act, 1948 (Act 34 of 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). The application leading to A.O. No. 5 of 1968 was against Messrs. Popular Process Studio and its proprietor Mukund Kashalkar for the recovery of Rs. 1567.63 as employees' contribution for the period from August 19, 1959, to August 31, 1964, and was filed on. January 25, 1965, while the application leading to A.O. No. 6 of 1968 was against Messrs. Dawn Mills Co. (Ltd.) and its Director Ramniwas Ram Narayan for the recovery of Rs. 7252.13 as employees' contribution for the period from October 3, 1954, to March 31. 1960, and was filed on Jun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1301; [1961]3SCR969
Sarkar, J.1. The respondent is a Civil Engineer who held various positions under the appellant, the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. On September 8, 1954, while the respondent was holding the post of Development Commissioner, he was placed under suspension by an order made by the appellant on that date. Later, the appellant passed another order on February 12, 1955, demoting the petitioner to the post of a Divisional Engineer. 2. On May 12, 1955, the respondent moved the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir under Art. 32(2A) of the Constitution of India as applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, for a writ directing the appellant not to give effect to the order dated February 12, 1955, and to recognise him as the Chief Engineer, the substantive post held by him when he was suspended, with effect from the date of suspension and with all emoluments of that office. The High Court issued the writ as prayed. The State appeals from the judgment of the High Court. 3. In the view th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1957P& H173
Kapur, J.1. In these two cases (Civil Miscellaneous No. 194-C of 1935 and Supreme Court Appeal No. 2 of 1956) certain questions of law have been referred to a Full Bench by two different Division Benches. In Civil Miscellaneous No. 194-C of 1955 the following question has been referred--'When the High Court refuses to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, does the order of the High Court amount to a judgment or a final order within the meaning of Article 133 of the Constitution and does an appeal lie to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1)(a) or 133(1)(b) provided the subject-matter of the appeal is worth Rs. 20,000/- or more?'In the Supreme Court Appeal No. 2 of 1956 the two questions which have been referred are--(1) Whether an order passed by this Court de-clining to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution can be regarded as a judgment, decree or final order within the, meaning of Article 133? and(2) Whether the proceeding in which such an order is passed ...
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!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1961)IILLJ486Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, Sri T.N. Subramania Iyer, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to have the order of respondent 1, Ex.P. 1, dated 20 October 1960 quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order. 2. The order Ex.P. 1 itself is to the effect that investigations conducted into allegations against the three officers mentioned therein, one of whom is the petitioner, have disclosed prima facie that the officers have committed the two irregularities stated therein. Ex.P. 1 also states that the allegations referred to therein, for which there is prima facie evidence are of a serious nature warranting disciplinary action and the Government consider that the case against the three officers mentioned therein should be proceeded with and enquired into under the Kerala Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1960 and the Government order accordingly. 3. Ex.P. 1 is also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(4)KLT166
V.K. Bali, C.J.1. Simple but significant question that arises in these three connected Writ Petitions is as to whether the Lok Ayukta, exercising powers under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1999', has suo motu powers to conduct any investigation with respect to matters in its domain envisaged under the Act. Put in other words, whether the Lok Ayukta under the Act of 1999 would have jurisdiction to investigate grievance sought to be ventilated or projected in anonymous or pseudonymous letters, newspaper reports or a letter of complaint which may be received by him without complying with the necessary procedure as enshrined under the various provisions of the Act. Before we may, however, delve on the question as posed above in the context of rival contentions raised by the counsel representing the parties it would be useful to give a resume of the facts culminating into filing of the three petitions which the learned Counsel representing the parties a...
Tag this Judgment!