Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1964CriLJ362
ORDERN.U. Beg, J.1. This is an application Under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The applicant is Dr. Ganga Baksh Singh and the opposite parties are (1) Dr. J. C. Sharma, Principal, National Homeopathic Medical Collage, Lucknow (2) Dr. Daya Nand, Member U. P. Homeopathic Medicine Board, Lucknow and (3) Dr. A. P. Arora, Member, U. P. Homeopathic Medicine Board, Lucknow.The facts giving rise to this application may be briefly stated as follows:On the 7th of February, 1961 an application signed by a number of persons was made to the Registrar, Homeopathic Medicine Board, U. P. Lucknow alleging that Dr. J. C. Sharma, opposite party No. 1 who was principal of the National Homoeopathic College, Lucknow and a member of the Management Board of the said coJIegei, had obtained scholarship from the U. P. Government for higher studies by making certain false representations regarding his qualifications and had also succeeded in securing his post in National Homeopathic College, Lucknow in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1971)IILLJ261Ker
P. Naryana Pillai, J.1. For inquiring into the truth of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour against the petitioner who is a member of the Indian Police Service, borne on the Kerala cadre, the State Government, which is the disciplinary authority and the first respondent in this petition, appointed under Rule 8(2) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 first, Shri R. Gopala Shenoy and later Shri P.A. Quadir Meeran, the second respondent, as the inquiring authority. The presenting officer appointed by the first respondent to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge represented before Shri. R. Gopala Shenoy that it would not be possible to secure the attendance of all witnesses unless coercive steps were issued to them. As the All India Services Rules did not provide for taking coercive steps against unwilling witnesses to secure their attendance before the inquiring authority Shri R. Gopala Shenoy wrote to the Secretary in charge of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC66; 1956CriLJ156; [1955]2SCR955
Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal with certificate under article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution arises out of an application under section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act (XXXII of 1952) and section 8 of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act (XXXVII of 1850) read with article 227 of the Constitution filed by the respondent against the appellant in the High Court of Judicature of Patna and raises an important question as to whether the Commissioner appointed under Act XXXVII of 1850 is a Court. 2. The respondent is a Member of the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch). The State Government received reports to the effect that the respondent had been guilty of serious misconduct and corrupt practices in the discharge of his official duties while employed as Sub-Divisional Officer at Aurangabad and they accordingly decided that an inquiry into the truth of the various charges against him should be made under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (Act XXXVII of 1850, hereinafte...
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!