SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Bom) 1091

B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, D.D.SINHA
RAMRAO RAMCHANDRA DATIR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent


Judgment

( 1 ) HEARD Shri Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner states that the present writ petition is directed against the issuance of Charge Sheet dated 9-2-1988 issued by respondent No. 1 as well as letter dated 15-4-1989 issued by respondent No. 1 and communication dated 3-9-1990 issued by the Divisional Special Officer to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was informed that the Government has decided to hold a Departmental Enquiry against him as per Government Order textile Section, dated 31-8-1989.

( 3 ) SHRI Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the issuance of charge sheet dated 9-2-1988 itself is not sustainable in law in view of the order passed by this Court dated 24-3-1986 in Writ Petition No. 598 of 1987, which reads thus :"mr. V. D. Govilkar for the petitioner. Mr. M. B. Mehere, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent. The enquiry to be completed and the report to be made not later than 15th June, 1986. Mr. Govilkar states that the petitioner will not apply adjournment at the enquiry. In the light of the above, M







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top