Fajalur Rahaman vs I.P.G.C.L.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
V.KAMESWAR RAO
Fajalur Rahaman – Appellant
Versus
I.P.G.C.L. – Respondent

Table of Content
1. petitions filed regarding charge sheets. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. competence of director (technical) to issue charge sheets. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 12 , 18)
3. clarification on initiation of disciplinary proceedings. (Para 9 , 13 , 30)
4. nature of authority and delegation in disciplinary proceedings. (Para 11 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. final decision on writ petitions. (Para 34 , 36 , 39)

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. As an identical issue arises for consideration in these two writ petitions, they are being decided together through this common order. The issue that has arisen is whether the Director (Technical) is competent to issue charge sheet to the petitioners herein.

W.P.(C) 890/2020

2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"Therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:-

i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the chargesheet memo dated 07.09.2017 along with order dated 31.05.2018 for Inquiry under Rule-14 of CCS(CCA) Conduct Rule 1965, which is for major penalty proceedings issued by Sh.Jagdis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTV.KAMESWAR RAOFajalur Rahaman – AppellantVersusI.P.G.C.L. – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
V.KAMESWAR RAO
Fajalur Rahaman – Appellant
Versus
I.P.G.C.L. – Respondent