Back
DILIP B BHOSALE, SUNEET KUMAR
U. P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
Hon’ble Dilip B Bhosale, C.J.—The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its Chairman and Members, have instituted this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling into question the order/notification dated 21.11.2017. By this order/notification, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5, read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) (for short, ‘Act, 1946’), with consent of the State Government, has extended the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for conducting enquiry/investigation into serious allegations against the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short, ‘UPPSC’) in respect of examinations and their results held/declared during the period between 1.4.2012 and 31.3.2017 (for short “relevant period”). Further, they have also prayed for a writ of
The court found that the chairman and members of the Haryana Public Service Commission misbehaved by failing to maintain integrity, refusing to cooperate with investigations, and engaging in arbitrar....
Point of Law : Sub-section (1) of Section (3) of Act makes it clear that appropriate Government is under a statutory obligation to appoint a Commission of Inquiry in a case where a resolution on that....
Dispensation of departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) demands cogent reasons proving impracticability due to witness intimidation or threats; mere allegation gravity or criminal pendency insuf....
Disciplinary action under Article 311(2)(b) must be supported by robust evidence; reliance on mere presumptions about witness intimidation without conducting an inquiry contravenes natural justice pr....
Prior sanction is mandatory for investigating public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, distinguishing between investigation and cognizance stages.
Dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) invalid without cogent, objective reasons showing inquiry impracticable; FIR involvement and witness fear presumptions insufficient if criminal probe exonerates empl....
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
