P. Venu
05 May 2015 at 12:42
This topic was earlier posted in the Forum to elicit discussion on the questions of law involved. However, it appears, the topic remained unnoticed by the learned experts, other than Shri Vashista. Hence the matter is posted as a Query:
In a Departmental Inquiry (Disciplinary Proceedings) under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 the Inquiry proceedings had been completed by the first week of December 2014 and the Presenting and Charged officers have submitted their written briefs to the Inquiry Officer by the end of Decmber 2014 and second week of January 2015 respectively. The only task remaining has been the submission of Iquiry Report, which in the normal course should have completed within a period of three months i.e. by the second week of April.
However, the Disciplinary Authority, by the Order dated 23rd April has appointed another Inquiry Officer citing the reason that the Original Inquiry Officer could not complete the Inquiry due to the completion of tenure in the Department before the final report could be prepared.
The Order is strange in more than one way: it does not cancel or rescind the appointment of the First Inquiry Officer nor is a copy of this Order endorsed to him. Secondly, the completion of the tenure has not been a new development. It was well known that his tenure was to complete on 16th January. Surprisingly, the new Inquiry Officer has been appointed more than three months thereafter. All that the new Inquiry Officer has to do is to prepare the final report.
Is the appointment of the new IO said to lawful or legally required?
Can the inquiry report prepared by the new IO said to be accordance with the provisions of Article 311?
Is not the new development repugnant to the provisions of CCS(CCA) Rules and discipline of the Constitution?
Devnandan Sharma
02 May 2015 at 22:17
A reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution was made by the President of India in June, 2007. The case was listed first in January, 2008. The charges on which inquiry has to be conducted were approved in September, 2010. Recording of evidence and cross-examination of witnesses were finished in February, 2013. On 01.10.2013, after resolving issues regarding transcription of documents filed during evidence, the Hon’ble Registrar issued directions for listing the case before the hearing bench as per rules. The case was listed on 07.02.2014, 05.03.2014, 09.04.2014, 15.07.2014, 16.09.2014, and 11.11.2014, but the same was adjourned without any material progress; on two occasions, the case has to be adjourned due to non-appearance of the concerned Counsel of the opposite side, and on one occasion, the case was simply adjourned without any reason. On 16.09.2014, the opposite sides persuaded for declaring the case infructuous, but due to opposition from my side, the Hon’ble Court directed that it has to be decided on merits. 11.11.2014 was fixed for the next hearing. On that day, again the opposite parties sought adjournment due to non-availability of their Advocate.
After that the case became traceless. In January, 2015 it was indicated that the case is likely to be listed on 24.03.2015. Before 10 days, it was indicated that the case is likely to be listed on 31.03.2015. This trend continues till now. My Counsel mentioned for fixing the date, but that yielded no result, and at present it has been informed that the case is likely to be listed on 07.07.2015. I am more than 65 years of age and about eight precious years of my life has been spoiled.
Is there any effective remedy for this kind of distress? Should I write directly to H.E. the President of India to request Hon’ble CJI for early disposal of the case which was initiated by His Excellency? Or may I write directly to Hon’ble CJI?
Sanjeet Kumar
02 May 2015 at 16:21
Brief Facts of the Case:
i) M/s Company X is a Public Sector Unit with Nine Production Units. In addition, Company X has established two Laboratories Y for R&D purpose. The executives of Y constitutes a Separate Cadre and are governed by separate Service Rules. In Short, the Service Rules for executives of X and executives of Y are substantially different. In fact, the service benefits of executives of Y are much superior to the service benefits of executives of X.
ii) In October 2010, I was appointed as Member (Research Staff) and was posted to Y. Subsequently, in January 2014, I was transferred from the post of Member (Research Staff), Pay Scale 16,400 – 50,500, in Y to the post of Deputy Engineer, Pay Scale 16,400 – 40,500, in Production Unit of X. In this way my Cadre and Service Rules was changed by means of Transfer. I was transferred and relieved within a day without any exigency. Since I was relieved within a day, in the interest of discipline I had complied with the transfer order and joined duty as a Deputy Engineer.
iii) Having my service condition altered substantially, I challenged the validity of Transfer Order through a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court in May 2014. In October 2014, Hon’ble Court had issued Rule/admitted WP.
iv) Subsequently, I moved Interlocutory Application for Interim Order of Stay of the transfer order. In that IA, I had prayed for grant of interim order of stay of the transfer order and permission to rejoin duty as a Member (Research Staff) in Y. This was what the final relief sought.
v) In December 2014, Hon’ble Court was pleased to allow the IA and had granted the interim order of Stay of the transfer order with observation that “the transfer order is illegal, ex-facie and thus calls for interference”. That means, the Hon’ble Court had granted the interim relief which tantamount to the final relief.
vi) Subsequently, I sent four representations to the CMD and requested to comply with the Interim Order. The Company has not responded for any of my representations.
vii) Having no other option, I filed Contempt Petition (Civil) in March 2015. Hon’ble Court has ordered notice.
viii) After filing the Contempt Petition, I came to know that on in January 2015, the company filed the Writ Appeal and has also moved IA for Stay of Interim Oder. But Company has never requested for hearing of IA and so the Appeal has not been posted for hearing even once. That means, company has not taken Stay of Interim Order.
Queries:
1) As mentioned above, I was transferred and relieved within a day, so I had complied with the transfer order in the interest of discipline. Having complied with the transfer order and then filed WP and got interim order of Stay of transfer order, what is the legal validity and effect of Interim Order of Stay of transfer order?
2) In my IA for Stay, I had only prayer that Interim Order of Stay of transfer order to be granted and I shall be permitted to join duty as Member (Research Staff) in Y. The Hon’ble Court has fully allowed the IA and ordered the Interim Order of Stay of Transfer Order but has not specifically mentioned that I shall be permitted to join duty as Member (Research Staff) in Y. Since the IA has been fully allowed, does the Interim Order mean that I shall be permitted to join duty as Member (Research Staff) in Y?
3) Since the company has filed Appeal but has not taken Stay of the Interim Order, what is the legal validity and effect of the Contempt Petition?
4) The Company has filed the Appeal but has not requested for hearing even once. The company has not communicated the same to me even after submitting four requests to comply with the Interim order. That means the company has been simply waiting for the contempt petition to be moved. In this background, what is the propriety or legal validity of the Appeal?
Kindly reply to all of the queries pointwise. I also request you to kindly provide the reference of Supreme Court decisions or any other established law in support of your answer. I will be thankful to you.
Ashok
29 April 2015 at 14:23
Sirs,
We had given an application and proposal to MCGM,K west - Andheri West, Mumbai for installing street lights on November,2013. Its a social cause and related to general public, multiple reminders and visits been made to officers concerned for the same and asked/written to all appropriate authorities till the rank of Additional Municipal Commissioner - MCGM. No any action, all went in vain.
Nothing been working out due to MCGM employees lax attitude towards basic concern. Even we had provided them with the Map of the location where street lights are required and said road comes under MCGM.
Is there any Constitutional Law which can used to remind that its their duty to expedite the requirement of common people.
Would request all the experts to advice us on the above mentioned.
Regards,
Ashok P
shivam
18 April 2015 at 16:42
Dear all,
I would like to know that if the voter card of the parents are in one city in west bengal,india then whether it is necessary that their son should also get his voter card in that city?
Secondly can a son transfer his voter I-card to a different city without transferring his parents vater i card?Can he do if he is not employed?
How to change aadhar card address?
Thanking you.
naresh chamarthy
17 April 2015 at 00:34
respected sir.iam naresh from hyderabad.i purchased a indipendent house from bank.i paid all total money .they issues sale certificate also.but the defaulter apporched drt.drt given docket order.please advice me.how safe i'm.
docket order dt 08-01-2015.
This application is filed in -------------
for stay of all futher proceedings including the delivery of the physical possession of the sehedur property/confirmation of the e-action cum sale notice on the ground that the applicant thought obtained interim order in failed to comply the order as he could not mobilize the required amount to deposit as per the conditional order and as such the respondent bank proceededfuther andd issued the action sale notice and conducted the action of the sehedule property but without following the due process of law and as such the respondent bank canot proceed futher and hence for the grant of stay order.
but the respondent bank opposed the petition srongly by submiting throught their advocate while requesting time for filling of detail counter having filed of the material documents and contended that,it is the third round of litigation of the applicant and has no respect to the court of law and used to file number o appication for the grant of stay and later failed to comply with the conditional imposed at the time of granting the stay order since the purpose ever and similarly failed the present S.A
along with I.A seeking for the interim order.
admited the S.A filed by the applicant challenging the earlier sale notice was dismissed by the holding with the respondent bank has not commited any irregulatiesand since followed the procedure as mandated by rule 8(1)(2) and(6) of security act rules. in the said S.A the applicant obtained interim orders but on condition to deposit cretain amount.but the applicant fails to comply the same said interim orders and ultimately the said S.A was dissmissed on merlts.the applicant who failed to comply the same said orders,also filed W.Ps. before High court of judicature at Hyderabad and ultimately withdrawn the W.Ps. WHEN the respondent bank proceeded further by lssuing the E-auction sale notice dated:16.02.2015 fixing the auction of the schedule property dated:23.03.2015 and conducted the auction of the schedule property dated 23.03.2015 again the applicant filed the present S.A challenging the same said proceedings and wanted to take interim orders for the stay of futher proceedings in pursuance to the auction conducted on 23.03.2015 against the schedule property by questioning the procedure adopted by the respondent bank since not issued notice of 30 days for sale as required under rule 8 (6).but already the respondent bank issued the notice as under rule 8 (6) and was already challenged by the applicant by filling the and the said S.A was dismissed by upholding the procedure adopted by the respondent bank as correct and not found any deviations the respondent bank issued a fresh E-auction sale notice in pursuance tothe same said notice issued under rule 8 (6) and therefore it shall be deemed that the respondent bank rightly followed the procedure and there is no necessity to issue any fresh notic under rule 8 (6) in view of orders in S.A 605 of 2013. the respondent bank prima facie followed procedure as mandated by rule 8 (6) and 9 (1) and in such circumstances the respondent bank since already conducted auction of the schedule property it is also not prudent and safe to safe to stall the further proceedings including the confirmation of sale and issuing of sale certificate and if at all there are any lapses inadopting the procedure in issuing the sale certificate the same may be challenged in the main S.A and it subject to the result of the S.A therefore there is no necessity to grant any inerim stay of further proceedings to be initiated by the respondent bank in pursuance to the E-auction notice dated:16.02.2015 including the conducting of auction of the schedule property for counter and hearing call no 22.04.2015.
in case applicant ready to to pay total out standing amount at 22/04/2015.that about my sale certificate.bank is ready to do registation subject to S.A pending.
anilkumar
15 April 2015 at 22:07
I had filed rti to tehsildar to know the status of property case filed by my mother in tehsil but tehsildar has replied that as per rti rules no information can be provided for pending cases and you can inspect and take copies from tehsil only after paying fees.also there is no stamp of tehsildar on the answer sheet and in the end instead of writing that if you are not satisfied with answer then file appeal with deputy commissioner, he has mentioned that contact me for further information or clarification.
my mother has filed case in 2014 for partition of ancestral property which her brother alongwith our lawyer and tehsil people is delaying. So I want to know can I not get the till date proceedings by post after paying required fee and is it rti law that such information can not be provided to applicant till the case is decided.
also want to know was it mandatory for tehsildar to mention details of first appealate authority alongwith tehsil stamp.
Chitresh Sharma
10 April 2015 at 18:18
I am working on a matter where an Indian citizen acquired citizenship of Canada.
Now when he came back to meet his relatives, he has been refused to enter India due to some misconception of him being involved in some anti social activities by the Ministry of External Affairs. A writ petition was filled on the issue and On reply from ministry they have just stated that he is involved in adverse activities and secondly writ petition is not maintainable by a foreign national. Petitioner is not involved in any criminal activity in India or in Canada as per the records form Canadian and Punjab Government.
Kindly help me out with the issues.
A. Maintainability of a Writ Petition regarding a foreign national. ( Please support your point with any Supreme Court Judgment ) as it would be really helpful for me.
B. They have mentioned him being involved in adverse activities but have not mentioned exactly what they really mean by that. So how should I go ahead with that, should I file a R.T.I asking the same?
mohsinvehdani
10 April 2015 at 03:47
My son has been falsely implicated in a criminal case and the trial court is reluctant for the last two months to hear his application for acquittal before trial concludes. I have filed a constitutional petition for issuance to direction to the trial court. High Court says that the petition should be filed by my son (accused) or by his counsel as I have no locus standi. I need some precedents whether a father of (unmarried and dependent) accused or a family member can approach the court for a writ?
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Writ petition to be filed in delhi high court
I am going to file a Writ Petition against Central Vigilance Commission and three other public authorities, because an Vigilance Inquiry is conducted after its direction and found that corruption is involved in the matter. But CVC is ignoring to take further action on flimsy grounds that the matter is old one. In the Writ Petition three Private Parties to be made as Respondents. Please advice me whether I have to serve Advance copy of the Petition to all the 7 Respondents or only 4 Government Authorities.