Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.69 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kanta Batra & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 30 April, 2014
Another Division Bench of this Court, in
vide order dated 5th October, 2018 in LPA No.72/2018 titled Dr. Tejinder
Kaur Vs. Union of India, dismissed the appeal against the dicta of the
Single Judge in Tejinder Kaur Vs. Union of India 2017 SCC OnLine Del
12221 also holding that in case of the person concerned being governed by
the CCS CCA Rules, the ICC has a dual role.
High Court Of Judicature At Bombay Throu ... vs Shashikant S, Patil And Anr on 28 October, 1999
8. The counsel for the respondent has argued, (a) that the High Court's
control on Judicial Officers is full and exclusive and powers under Article
235 of the Constitution of India are not circumscribed by any statute, rule or
order, including the Sexual Harassment Act; reliance is placed on State of
West Bengal Vs. Nripendra Nath Bagchi AIR 1966 SC 447; (b) that the
scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very
narrow in cases concerning Judicial Officers; reliance, besides on the
judgment dated 21st August, 2019 of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition
705/2018, is also placed on Rajendra Singh Verma Vs. Lieutenant
Governor (2011) 10 SCC 1, Registrar General, High Court of Patna Vs.
Pandey Gajendra Prasad (2012) 6 SCC 357, R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court
W.P.(C) 5390/2020 Page 18 of 32
of Gujarat (2016) 14 SCC 1 and Rajasthan High Court Vs. Ved Priya 2020
SCC OnLine SC 337; (c) that the standards of behaviour expected from a
Judicial Officer are higher, as judicial service is not mere employment but
public office of great trust and responsibility; reliance is placed on High
Court of Judicature at Bombay Vs. Shashikant S. Patil (2000) 1 SCC 416;
Additional District And Sessions ... vs Registrar General, High Court Of Madhya ... on 18 December, 2014
(d) that the Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 21st August, 2019 has
already held that non-supply of Inquiry Report dated 5th November, 2016
did not prejudice the petitioner and that the Inquiry Report dated 9th March,
2018 was the relevant report envisaged under Section 13 of the Sexual
Harassment Act; (e) that the Inquiry Report dated 9th March, 2018 was
placed before and considered by the Full Court on 25th April, 2018, when
vide Resolution of the said date, the petitioner was called upon by letter
dated 15th May, 2018 to submit his written representation or submissions, if
so desired, against the finding of the Inquiring Authority within the meaning
of Rule 9(2) of the AIS Rules; (f) that the Inquiry Report dated 9th March,
2018, in paragraph 67 thereof specifically reports that "there is sufficient
material brought on record to establish the unwelcome sexually determined
behavior" and that the petitioner was "liable for disciplinary action"; (g) that
thus the Inquiring Authority categorically concluded that the allegation of
sexual harassment against the petitioner was proved; (h) that even though
the respondent was not obligated to, in the interest of fairness, an initial fact
finding exercise was done which culminated in the Inquiry Report dated 5th
November, 2016 and whereafter a full-fledged inquiry, culminating in the
Inquiry Report dated 9th March, 2018, was conducted; (i) that the ICC
established under Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment Act and the Inquiring
Authority under the service rules in cases pertaining to sexual harassment,
W.P.(C) 5390/2020 Page 19 of 32
are one and the same body; (j) that the petitioner has been treated fairly in
the inquiry process and has had the opportunity to examine and cross-
examine witnesses with the benefit of assistance of counsel and senior
counsel; (k) that the inquiry was in accordance with the applicable rules; (l)
that there was no need for two separate inquiries; reliance is placed on
Sonali Badhe Vs. Ashish Chandra Singh MANU/DE/3852/2015 (DB); (m)
that a belated challenge to the inquiry, after participating in the same, is not
permissible; reliance is placed on Additional District & Sessions Judge 'X'
Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2015) 4 SCC 91;
Pankaj Kr. Mishra vs Union Of India on 31 July, 2018
(n) that a technical infirmity cannot be allowed to defeat a legitimate
complaint, the veracity of which has been extensively scrutinized; reliance is
placed on Pankaj Kumar Vs. Union of India 2017 SCC OnLine Tri 57; (o)
that the Full Court, in its meeting held on 20th January, 2020 considered the
representations dated 11th October, 2019, 30th October, 2019 and 9th
December, 2019 filed by the petitioner and again perused the Inquiry Report
dated 9th March, 2018 and resolved, in view of the gravity of the charge and
the evidence adduced, to impose major penalty of dismissal from service;
Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors vs U.O.I. & Ors on 19 October, 2012
Supreme Court also in Medha
Kotwal Lele Vs. Union of India (2013) 1 SCC 297, before the coming into
force of the Sexual Harassment Act, while issuing directions for
implementation of Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241,
W.P.(C) 5390/2020 Page 31 of 32
directed the States and the Union Territories, which till then had not carried
out adequate and appropriate amendments in their respective Civil Services
Conduct Rules to in their Rules provide that the report of the ICC shall be
deemed to be an inquiry report in a disciplinary action and that the
Disciplinary Authority shall treat the report/findings etc. of the ICC as the
findings in a disciplinary inquiry against the delinquent employee and shall
act on such report accordingly. This again indicates that no two inquiries
are contemplated.
Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 August, 1997
Supreme Court also in Medha
Kotwal Lele Vs. Union of India (2013) 1 SCC 297, before the coming into
force of the Sexual Harassment Act, while issuing directions for
implementation of Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241,
W.P.(C) 5390/2020 Page 31 of 32
directed the States and the Union Territories, which till then had not carried
out adequate and appropriate amendments in their respective Civil Services
Conduct Rules to in their Rules provide that the report of the ICC shall be
deemed to be an inquiry report in a disciplinary action and that the
Disciplinary Authority shall treat the report/findings etc. of the ICC as the
findings in a disciplinary inquiry against the delinquent employee and shall
act on such report accordingly. This again indicates that no two inquiries
are contemplated.