Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.04 seconds)
Kamal Kishore Sharma vs Ministry Of Jal Shakti on 29 May, 2023 cites

Union Of India And Another vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana on 22 November, 2006

29. So far as the issue of inordinate delay is concerned, it has been explained that the actions of the applicant for 24 O.A. No.2680/2021 the period April 2013 to May 2014 are being investigated and on the same charges, a charge memo dated 18.04.2017 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued and since the applicant did not agree to the same, then charge memo dated 31.07.2017 was issued in detail. At that time, he was in the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs and was subsequently transferred to the Ministry of Jal Shakti. Since there was a change in the competent authority to issue charge memo, the Ministry of Jal Shakti issued charge memo dated 17.12.2020 on the same charges and lines through the competent authority. Therefore delay in issuing the charge memo seems to be due to administrative reasons. Moreover, we may also refer to the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 wherein paras 12 to 16, it is held as under :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1144 - M Katju - Full Document

The Special Director And Anr vs Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse And Anr on 9 January, 2004

"In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in allowing the Writ Petition. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or showcause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt 25 O.A. No.2680/2021 Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere showcause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show- cause notice or charge sheet. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 952 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Brahma Datt Sharma And Anr on 25 February, 1987

"In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in allowing the Writ Petition. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or showcause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt 25 O.A. No.2680/2021 Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere showcause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show- cause notice or charge sheet. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 967 - K N Singh - Full Document

Ameesh Kumar Sharma And Another vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 20 February, 2023

19. The respondents have not filed any counter to the OA. In this matter only an MA was filed (MA No.297/2022) on 03.02.2022 praying for vacation/modification of interim order dated 06.12.2021. In the said MA, which is being treated as counter, the respondents have averred that in the present case, the charge memo is issued to the applicant regarding the misconduct committed by him for the period particularly April 2013 to May 2014 wherein the Respondent No.4 had no role whatsoever in the said alleged misconduct, of which the applicant is accused. It is asserted that the Respondent No.4 was not in any way acted with the said NLP. Moreover, it had nothing to do with the decision of this Tribunal in OA No.1043/2020 dated 24.03.2021 titled as Ameesh Agarwal vs. Union of India & Others wherein the impugned charge memo dated 22.03.2019 had been quashed and left it open to the respondents to conduct a special audit or inspection into 15 O.A. No.2680/2021 the Nirman Lekha Project, Phase-I, through a team of officers of which the 3rd respondent (4th respondent in the present OA) is not a member.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - P K Gupta - Full Document
1