Back
2005 Supreme(SC) 1701
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.K. Sema, B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
Vijay Kumar, Ias - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Anr. - Respondents
I.A. Nos. 4-9 In Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 1037 of 1988 W.P(C) NO. 911 of 1990 & W.P(C) No. 912 of 1990
Decided On : 09-12-2005
For the Petitioners:Petitioner-In-Person, Adv.
For the Respondents:Mr. T.A. Mohd Yusuf, Sr. Adv., Ms. Monica Sharma, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Mr. S.K. Dholakia, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure , Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Advocates
The central legal point established is that approaching the Court under Article 32 for suspension and show cause notice of an IAS Officer is misconceived, and the alternative efficacious remedy is to approach the C.A.T.
Headnote:
Article 32 - Suspension of IAS Officer - The court dismissed the writ petitions under Article 32, stating that the petitioner should approach the C.A.T for an efficacious remedy. The C.A.T was directed to hear and dispose of the matter uninfluenced by any observations made by the Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an IAS Officer, questioned the order suspending him and issuing a show cause notice under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that approaching the Court under Article 32 was misconceived and dismissed the writ petitions with liberty to the petitioner to urge all rights and contentions before the C.A.T.
Issues: The main issue was the appropriateness of approaching the Court under Article 32 for the suspension and show cause notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the alternative efficacious remedy for the petitioner was to approach the C.A.T.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions with liberty to the petitioner to approach the C.A.T and amend the petition, directing the C.A.T to hear and dispose of the matter uninfluenced by any observations made by the Court.
JUDGMENT :
1. Petitioner was an IAS Officer. By these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, he questions inter-alia the order suspending him and issuing show cause notice as to why the charges levelled against him should not be framed. In our view approaching this Court under Article 32 is misconceived. The alternative efficacious remedy is to approach the C.A.T.
2. In this view of the matter these Writ Petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to urge all the rights and contentions raised in this Court before the C.A.T. Petitioner is also at liberty to amend the petition before the C.A.T.
3. We make it clear that C.A.T. shall hear and dispose of the matter uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court.
4. With the aforesaid observations these I.As and Writ Petitions are dismissed.
