Back
SABINA, NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Ajay Kumar Sharda – Appellant
Versus
High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order, abovementioned two writ petitions would be disposed of.
2. Petitioner joined Rajasthan Judicial Service on 29.07.1980 in pursuance to the order dated 16.01.1980. Petitioner was promoted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the year 1993 and was further promoted to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Cadre in the year 2000. On 23.04.2013, an F.I.R. was registered against two advocates, one court clerk and one clerk of an advocate. On 23.06.2013, charge sheet was filed against three persons in the trial court and investigation qua the petitioner was kept pending. Petitioner was arrested on 27.05.2014 and was granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was released on bail on 16.05.2015. Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.06.2013. Petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2015 after attaining the age of 60 years. On the said date, petitioner was in judicial custody. Petitioner was granted provisional pension. Petitioner by way of a representation claimed that he was also entitled for gratuity and benefit of leave encashment. However, his representation was rejected. Petitioner was served with charge sheet vide memorandum dated 06.0
After a thorough review of the provided case law list, the following analysis categorizes the cases based on their judicial treatment and legal relevance.
None of the cases provided in the input list explicitly contain language indicating they have been "overruled," "reversed," or "abrogated." As the provided text consists of summaries of legal principles rather than history logs of judicial treatment citations, no case can be objectively labeled as "bad law" based strictly on the information provided.
### Category 1: Limitations on Writ Jurisdiction regarding Charge Sheets and Show Cause Notices
* **Special Director VS Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse - 2004 1 Supreme 431:** Categorized as establishing a restrictive standard. It specifies that a writ petition is not maintainable unless the notice is "totally non-est in eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction."
* **Secretary, Min of Defence VS Prabhash Chandra Mirdha - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 411:** Categorized as establishing a restrictive standard. It states that "Writ does not lie against charge sheet or show cause notice" and that these should not be quashed in a "routine manner."
* **Union of India VS Kunisetty Satyanarayana - 2006 9 Supreme 370:** Categorized as establishing a restrictive standard. It reinforces that "Ordinarily no writ lies" unless the notice is "wholly without jurisdiction or for some reason wholly illegal."
### Category 2: Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings
* **GOVERNMENT OF A. P. VS V. APPALA SWAMY. - 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 93:** Categorized as a balanced approach. It establishes that "Delay alone does not automatically vitiate" proceedings; it requires a context-specific review of charges, rules, and explanations.
* **Secretary To Government, Prohibition And Excise Department VS L. Srinivasan - 1996 2 Supreme 509:** Categorized as a restrictive approach. Explicitly bars the Tribunal from quashing suspension/charges solely on the "ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings" when other proceedings are pending.
* **State of A. P. VS N. Radhakishan - 1998 3 Supreme 584:** Categorized as an exception/fact-specific ruling. Acknowledges the quashing of a charge memo specifically due to "delay in concluding the inquiry proceedings."
### Category 3: Standards for Misconduct and Natural Justice
* **Dr. B. K. Choudhary VS State of Rajasthan - 1992 0 Supreme(Raj) 759:** Categorized as a substantive standard. Limits the initiation of an enquiry to cases involving "mala fide or ulterior motive" rather than "mere error or negligence."
* **M. V. Bijlani VS Union of India - 2006 3 Supreme 393:** Categorized as a procedural standard. Defines the Enquiry Officer's role as quasi-judicial requiring a "preponderance of probability."
* **P. D. Agrawal VS State Bank of India - 2006 5 Supreme 715:** Categorized as a progressive/evolutionary standard. Notes that the Court has "shifted from its earlier concept" regarding natural justice and highlights that delay due to pending criminal proceedings does not constitute "conscious act... to condone misconduct."
None. While some cases appear to reach opposite conclusions (e.g., State of A. P. VS N. Radhakishan - 1998 3 Supreme 584 vs. Secretary To Government, Prohibition And Excise Department VS L. Srinivasan - 1996 2 Supreme 509 regarding delay), this represents a conflict in judicial outcomes rather than an "unclear treatment" of the cases themselves. They are categorized according to their specific legal holdings provided.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
