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

2004 Supreme(Guj) 566

D.H.WAGHELA, R.K.ABICHANDANI
KAMLESHBHAI B. MEHTA – Appellant
Versus
HIGH COURT OF GUJ. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: D.D.VAIDHYA, J.B.PARDIWALA, NIRUPAM NANAVATI, R.C.KODEKAR, S.N.SHELAT

JUSTICE R. K. , C. J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, a former Civil Judge (S. D.), has challenged the order of his compulsory retirement by the State Government on the recommendation of the High Court made on 23rd December 1982 pursuant to the departmental inquiry held against the petitioner in which he was found guilty of the charges of dereliction of duty in making an order dated 30th October 1982 on an application made under Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code for returning the muddamal - oil barrels to the complaint. The petitioner had also challenged the validity of the Resolution No. 3 passed at the Chamber Meeting held on 26-12-1988 on the ground that it was ultra vires the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution of India. Under the said Resolution, it is provided that, on the report of the disciplinary committee comprising of the Honble Judges of the Court, along with the entire record of the inquiry, including the written submissions of the delinquent in response to the show cause notice for the proposed punishment, being laid for 48 hours on the table before the High Court, it would become the decision of the High Court. At the outset of the hearing, the learned Senio














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