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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1994)ILLJ162bSC; 1994Supp(2)SCC391
ORDERSawant, 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 August 5, 1991 in Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India v. B. Karu-nakar ST 1992(3) SC 605 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. 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 basic questions of law which arises in these matters is whether the report of the In...
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 : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal raises the question regarding the validity of a departmental inquiry, under rule 14 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 held and conducted by an Inquiry Officer who was not a serving officer but whose name was taken from a panel of retired officers prepared for the purpose of holding departmental inquiries.3. The respondent was an employee of the Geological Survey of India (hereafter `GSI') and at the material time he was holding a Group `B' post. He was due to superannuate from service on November 30, 2000. On November 24, 2000, he was served with a show cause notice dated November 23, 2000 in connection with various charges and asking him to give his explanation within a week. The respondent gave his reply to the show cause notice but it was not found satisfactory and a charge-sheet was issued against him. One Shri S.M.M.V. Krishna Rao, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer who was selected from a panel of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~58. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision:31. 01.2013 % W.P.(C) No.7748/2010 S.K.TAQI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. M.Y. Khan, Advocate versus THE CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the industrial award passed by the Labour Court dated 31.03.2010 in ID No.2323/95, whereby the Labour Court X has answered the following reference made by the appropriate government against the petitioner/workman: Whether the dismissal of services of Shri S.K. Taqi is illegal and/or unjustified, and if so, to what directions are necessary in this regard? 2. The petitioner also assails the order dated 07.11.2009 passed by the Labour Court in the course of the proceedings before it, whereby the Labour Court has ruled that the departmental enquiry conducted against t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7649/2015 % UNION OF INDIA & ANR Reserved on:22. d March, 2017 Date of Decision:25. h August, 2017 ........ Petitioner Through Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Advocate. SUNNY ABRAHAM versus ..... Respondent Through Mr. Shanker Raju and Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocates. W.P.(C) 215/2016 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ........ Petitioner Through Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Advocate. SHRI PAVAN VED & ANR versus ..... Respondent Through Mr. Puneet Jain and Ms. Christi Jain, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.In view of similarity of the issue raised, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, we would be noticing the facts separately.2. The issue raised in these writ petitions relate to the effect and the impact of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. B.V. Gopinath, 2014 (1) SCC351 In the said decision the Supreme Court had examined Rule 14...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7649/2015 % UNION OF INDIA & ANR Reserved on:22. d March, 2017 Date of Decision:25. h August, 2017 ........ Petitioner Through Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Advocate. SUNNY ABRAHAM versus ..... Respondent Through Mr. Shanker Raju and Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocates. W.P.(C) 215/2016 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ........ Petitioner Through Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Advocate. SHRI PAVAN VED & ANR versus ..... Respondent Through Mr. Puneet Jain and Ms. Christi Jain, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.In view of similarity of the issue raised, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, we would be noticing the facts separately.2. The issue raised in these writ petitions relate to the effect and the impact of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. B.V. Gopinath, 2014 (1) SCC351 In the said decision the Supreme Court had examined Rule 14...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1956P& H58
Bhandari, C.J.1. The principal point for decision, which has been somewhat obscured by the raising of a number of subsidiary issues, is whether the petitioner was denied the constitutional privilege of being heard before the order of dismissal was passed.2. The petitioner in this case is one Sardar Kapur Singh who until lately was a member of the Indian Civil Service and employed as a Deputy Commissioner in the Punjab in a substantive permanent capacity. He was placed under suspension on 13-4-1949 and a written statement of charges was handed over to him in due course. Weston J. the then Chief Justice of this Court was requested to hold an inquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, on 18-5-1950 and he submitted his report on 14-5-1951.He found that the petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 16,000/- and that he had knowingly permitted a certain contractor to cheat Government to the extent of Rs. 30,000/-. A copy of this report was supplied to the petitioner on 11-2-1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC295; 1964CriLJ224; [1964]4SCR204
Das Gupta, J. 1. The appellant, R. P. Kapur, was appointed to the Indian Civil Servicealmost 25 years ago. He continued in the service after the independence ofIndia and since 1948 has been serving the Government of Punjab. On the 18thJuly 1959, when the appellant was serving as Commissioner, Ambala Division, hewas placed under suspension. A few months before this, two criminal cases hadbeen instituted against him. The first of these was instituted on December 10,1958, by one M. L. Sethi against Kapur and his mother-in-law, Kaushalya Devi,on allegations of offences under section 420 and section 120B of the IndianPenal Code. The second was instituted on the complaint of one M. L. Dhingra onallegations of offences under section 55(2) of the Prevention of CorruptionAct, 1947 and sub-section 167, 168, 406, 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code.This complaint was submitted by Dhingra to Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon, theChief Minister of Punjab, on February 27, 1959. Action on this case was tak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1969Guj260
N.K. Vakil, J. 1. The only point involved in this second appeal is whether reasonable opportunity to be given to a Government Servant under Article 311(2) of the Constitution in a Departmental Inquiry includes a right of personal hearing at the stage of appeal.2. The respondent had joined the Police Department on 18th of April 1945 and, at the relevant date, he was working as a Police Head Constable. He was charged with criminal trespass into the compound of the P. S. I. Dohad (Rural) on the night between the 25th and 26th of November 1959. Thereafter a preliminary inquiry was held and subsequently a departmental inquiry was held as a result of which the plaintiff was dismissed from service by the Order of the D.S.P. dated 22nd of July 1960. The respondent then filed an appeal before the D.I.G. and it is the case of the respondent that he had requested the D.I.G, to give a personal hearing to him but that request was rejected by the D.I.G. and the appeal was dismissed on the 31st of De...
Tag this Judgment!