Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

of provisions under Section 41D(4) of the Act.
Against the said decision, the two trustees against whom charges were framed by the JCC filed Writ Petition No.3849 of 2008. The three other trustees against whom no allegations were made in the main Application filed by Respondent No.1 or any charges framed, filed separate Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.3850 of 2008 questioning the correctness of the decision of the JCC in his order dated 3rd June 2008. Both these Petitions were disposed of by the Single Judge of this Court on 11th July 2008. Insofar as the three trustees against whom there were no allegations in the Application or charges framed, the Court observed that the order passed against them, which was impugned in their Writ Petition was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. By the said Judgement, the learned Single Judge was, however, pleased to set-aside only the interim order dated 3rd June 2008 and issued direction to the JCC to pass fresh interim order in accordance with law. Significantly, the relief as claimed by the two trustees in Writ Petition No.3849 of 2008 to set-aside the order framing charge against them : 9 :

7. Against this decision also, Letters Patent Appeal has been carried by the two trustees against whom charges have been framed by the JCC under order dated 3rd June 2008. In the pending Letters Patent Appeals, the Division Bench of this Court on 1st October 2008 passed following order:

"P.C. :
1. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter be taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.
four trustees have tendered resignation and were no more associated with the Trust, the question of suspending the said trustees did not arise. For that reason, Application ig the JCC proceeded (Exhibit 2) only against five to consider charged trustees who continued to be on the Trust. The two other suspended trustees besides the three Petitioners herein have not chosen to challenge the order of suspension. Whereas, the present Petition has been filed only by the three suspended trustees who were Respondent No.9, Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.6 respectively in the proceedings before the JCC.
would not necessarily lead to an inference that the charged trustees are fully extricated of charge No.1 for their acts of commission and omission thereof. Those are matters to be answered in the pending enquiry.

31. For the time being, the opinion recorded by the JCC that there is likelihood of influencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidence is reinforced from at least abovesaid two subsequent conduct of the charged trustees referred to by the JCC is a possible view. The JCC has also adverted to the letter issued to the Heads of the Department in response to the Circular of Shri Halbe.