Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.45 seconds)Union Of India & Anr vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal on 22 November, 2013
18. The executive, how so far junior, cannot be browbeaten by any
Hon'ble Member of legislature to take a decision in a particular way
or to change their quasi-judicial decisions. The very circumstances of
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
CAT
Y VIJU 2024.12.09
15:15:15+05'30'
12
O.A No.170/00143/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
the case makes it amply clear to us that a small incident of telephonic
conversation has been disproportionately magnified into a big issue in
this case. And for merely to inquire whether the applicant himself
recorded and released the conversation to the media, an inquiry is
purported to be instituted. For such an inquiry with suspension, it is
definitely not clear as to in what way, and as to which custody or
control of papers or taking any advantageous position by the
applicant would have been possible when faced with the all-
powerful other side, having the might of the whole Legislature.
Clearly, in this case, there was no fact in terms of that, in any way, if
suspension was not there, the applicant could have had any advantage
or control or custody of any papers which, by his position, he could
have manipulated or influenced. So the element for suspension, in our
considered opinion did not exist in this particular case, and
furthermore hardly any justifiable reasons are visible to initiate any
disciplinary inquiry. From the facts of the case it appears that
unauthorizedly members of public impersonating as a legislator like
respondent no.5 was trying to directly interfere with administration of
quasi-judicial function and enforcement of forest laws or removal of
unauthorized forest land encroachments. Hence, we are clear in our
minds that we do not find any substance in this particular case as ruled
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
CAT
Y VIJU 2024.12.09
15:15:15+05'30'
13
O.A No.170/00143/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Ashok
Kumar Aggarwal (2013) 16 SCC 147 which goes in favour of the
applicant instead of the respondents who have cited the case.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Director General, Esi & Anr vs T. Abdul Razak Etc on 8 July, 1996
"26. The scope of interference by the Court with the
order of suspension has been examined by the Court
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
CAT
Y VIJU 2024.12.09
15:15:15+05'30'
15
O.A No.170/00143/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
in a large number of cases, particularly in State of
M.P. v. Sardul Singh,(1970) 1 SCC 108; P.V. Srinivasa
Sastry v.Comptroller&Auditor General of India, (1993)
1 SCC 419; Director General, ESI & Anr. v. T. Abdul
Razak,AIR 1996 SC 2292; Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s
Bharat Coaking Coal Ltd. & Ors.,AIR 1988 SC
2118; Delhi Cloth General Mills vs. Kushan Bhan, AIR
1960 SC 806; U.P.Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Parishad & Ors. v. Sanjeev Rajan, (1993) Supp.
The Delhi Cloth And General Mills Ltd vs Kushal Bhan on 10 March, 1959
"26. The scope of interference by the Court with the
order of suspension has been examined by the Court
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
CAT
Y VIJU 2024.12.09
15:15:15+05'30'
15
O.A No.170/00143/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
in a large number of cases, particularly in State of
M.P. v. Sardul Singh,(1970) 1 SCC 108; P.V. Srinivasa
Sastry v.Comptroller&Auditor General of India, (1993)
1 SCC 419; Director General, ESI & Anr. v. T. Abdul
Razak,AIR 1996 SC 2292; Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s
Bharat Coaking Coal Ltd. & Ors.,AIR 1988 SC
2118; Delhi Cloth General Mills vs. Kushan Bhan, AIR
1960 SC 806; U.P.Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Parishad & Ors. v. Sanjeev Rajan, (1993) Supp.
U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi ... vs Sanjiv Rajan on 29 March, 1993
"26. The scope of interference by the Court with the
order of suspension has been examined by the Court
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
CAT
Y VIJU 2024.12.09
15:15:15+05'30'
15
O.A No.170/00143/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
in a large number of cases, particularly in State of
M.P. v. Sardul Singh,(1970) 1 SCC 108; P.V. Srinivasa
Sastry v.Comptroller&Auditor General of India, (1993)
1 SCC 419; Director General, ESI & Anr. v. T. Abdul
Razak,AIR 1996 SC 2292; Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s
Bharat Coaking Coal Ltd. & Ors.,AIR 1988 SC
2118; Delhi Cloth General Mills vs. Kushan Bhan, AIR
1960 SC 806; U.P.Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Parishad & Ors. v. Sanjeev Rajan, (1993) Supp.
State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena & Others on 27 September, 1996
(3) SCC
483; State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena & Ors., (1996)
6 SCC 417; Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise
Department v.L.Srinivasan,(1996)3 SCC 157;
and Allahabad Bank & Anr.v.Deepak Kumar Bhola,
(1997)4 SCC 1,wherein it has been observed that even
if a criminal trial or enquiry takes a long time, it is
ordinarily not open to the court to interfere in case of
suspension as it is in the exclusive domain of the
competent authority who can always review its order
of suspension being an inherent power conferred
upon them by the provisions of Article 21 of
the General Clauses Act,1897 and while exercising
such a power, the authority can consider the case of
an employee for revoking the suspension order, if
satisfied that the criminal case pending would be
concluded after an unusual delay for no fault of the
employee concerned. Where the charges are baseless,
mala fide or vindictive and are framed only to keep the
delinquent employee out of job, a case for judicial
review is made out. But in a case where no conclusion
can be arrived at without examining the entire record
in question and in order that the disciplinary
proceedings may continue unhindered the court
may not interfere. In case the court comes to
the conclusion that the authority is not proceeding
expeditiously as it ought to have been and it results in
prolongation of sufferings for the delinquent
employee, the court may issue directions. The court
may, in case the authority fails to furnish proper
explanation for delay in conclusion of the enquiry,
direct to complete the enquiry within a stipulated
period. However, mere delay in conclusion of enquiry
or trial can not be a ground for quashing the
suspension order, if the charges are grave in nature.