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 : Delhi
Anil Kumar, J.1. The point for determination in the present writ petition is 'whether a retired employee of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) could be appointed as an enquiry officer in a disciplinary enquiry' under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965] which was initiated against the petitioner who was an Assistant Commissioner in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) Regional Office, Lucknow.2. Sh. Indre Singh, a retired Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries of the Central Vigilance Commission was appointed by the Vice Chairman of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) on 17th June, 2008 as an enquiry officer in the Disciplinary proceedings, which were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the appointment of a retired officer as enquiry officer in the Original Application filed by the petitioner being O.A. No. 1699 of 2008. On account of conflicting views of various Benches...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2007)(2)SLJ322CAT
1. Applicant Shri H.R. Megh is an IAS officer of 1990 batch allocated to the State of Punjab. He is aggrieved by the Memorandum of Chargesheet dated 26.6.2006, whereby inquiry under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, was ordered against him.The charge imputed against him was that when posted as Director, Consolidation, Punjab, Jalandhar in the year 1997, he accepted the petition of Sarpanch of Village Sahni, Tehsil Phagwara, Distt.Kapurthala under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1942 and allowed exchange of 7 acres of Gram Panchayat land with 4 acres of private land, putting the Panchayat to a great loss. It has been alleged in the Charge Memo that petition under Section 42 can be filed only for removal and rectification of patent mistake in the consolidation proceedings done at the time of consolidation, while there was no such mistake. Exchange of Gram Panchayat land with private land could be...
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 : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker279; (1960)IILLJ398Ker; (1960)IILLJ398Ker
ORDERS.Velu Pillai, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of Ext. P-6, an order dated 24-1-1959, passed by the respondent, the Government of the State of Kerala removing him from service as a Sub-Inspector of Police. A petition of complaint against him for alleged misconduct, was presented to the then Minister for Law by one Radhamma, upon which, pending enquiry, he was suspended from service on 17-2-1958. Preliminary enquiries having been made thereon, Government ordered, by notification dated 7-3-1958. 'a detailed departmental enquiry under the Kerala Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957', which may be referred to hereafter as the Kerala Rules, to be held on the complaint for 'indecent behaviour and misconduct' on his part, and committed the enquiry to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge who may he referred to hereafter as the Commissioner. Upon the complaint, the Commissioner framed a char...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP497
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the order passed by the Government dated 26-6-1958 in G. O. Ms. No. 1584 dismissing him from service on a charge of corruption and irregularities in court work. For a proper appreciation o the contentions raised the facts relating to suspension and dismissal of the petitioner and the writ petition and appeal to' the Supreme Court filed by him prior to this petition may be enumerated.2. The petitioner was recruited to the Madras Judicial Service as a District Munsif in 1935 and in 1949 he was promoted to the office of the Subordinate Judge and pasted at Masulipatam on 19-6-1950. The charge of bribery levelled against him was with respect to two connected suits tried by him, O. S. No. 95 of 1946 and O. S. No. 24 of 1949. On 27-7-1950, the trial having concluded, arguments were heard and judgment was reserved. On 10-8-1950, petitions were filed to re-hear the cases, which were allowed and, after hearing the parties, th...
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!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC750REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.________OF2024[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4353 of 2018]. K. BHARTHI DEVI AND ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 1st September 2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, whereby the High Court dismissed the Criminal Petition No.5778 of 2016 filed by the accused persons, including the 1 appellants herein, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC. for short) thereby seeking quashing of the charge-sheet in C.C. No.16 of 2014 on the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Nampally, Hyderabad (trial Court for short).3. Shorn of details, the case of the prosecution is as given below. 3.1 K. Suresh Kumar (Accused No.1), the Sole ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE30H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO.15313 OF2024(GM-POL) BETWEEN:1. . DR. SHANTH A. THIMMAIAH B.TECH. M. TECH., (INDL. POLLUTION CONTROL) AND PHD. (SE AND EIS) S/O. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT52YEARS, CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PARISARA BHAVANA, No.49, CHURCH STREET, BANGALORE - 560 001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE & SRI ANAND SANJAY M. NULI, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:1. . THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.-. 2 - 2 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, No.708 M.S. BUILDING, 7TH FLOOR, NEAR VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3 . MR. B. P. RAVI S/O. NOT KNOWN, PRESENTLY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R Reserved on :09. 09.2024 Pronounced on :27. 09.2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE27H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7526 OF2024BETWEEN: SRI BASANAGOUDA R. PATIL (YATNAL) S/O RAMANAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT60YEARS OCC: MLA, VIJAYAPURA CONSTITUENCY R/AT OLD IB, STATION ROAD VIJAYAPURA 586 101, KARNATAKA. ALSO AT R/AT SINDAGI ROAD MAHAL AINAPUR, AINAPURA BIJAPUR KARNATAKA 586 104. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI VENKATESH P. DALWAI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SHIVANANDA S. PATIL S/O SIDRAMAPPA PATIL AGED ABOUT63YEARS OCC: MLA ADDRESS: NEAR JAMKHANDI CROSS OPPOSITE TO PETROL PUMP JAMKHANDI ROAD VIJAYAPURA 586 101. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. NIVEDITHA C. SHIVANAIKAR, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C/528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED1607.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED42D A.C.J.M BENGALURU IN PCR NO.9136/2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD ...
Tag this Judgment!