Back
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
State Of U. P. Thru. Chief Secy. Govt. U. P. Lko. – Appellant
Versus
Shivani Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C.M. Application No.1 of 2024 (Application for condonation of delay in filing the Special Appeal)
1. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Singh, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants - State of U.P. & its Officers and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, the learned counsel for the sole respondent.
2. Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the sole respondent by Sri Ratnesh chandra, Advocate is taken on record.
3. The instant intra-Court Appeal filed by the State is delayed by 53 days as on 07.11.2024.
4. The appeal is accompanied with an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. In the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, we find that just and plausible reasons have been disclosed by the applicants-appellants seeking condonation of delay.
5. In absence of any objection and the explanation offered being bona fide, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
6. The appeal may be assigned a regular number.
Order on memo of Special Appeal
7. By means of the instant intra-Court Appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, the appellants have challenged the validity
Judicial officers can face disciplinary action for misconduct, but not for mere errors in judgment, emphasizing the need for judicial independence.
Unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings and vague charges can lead to quashing of the charge sheet, as it would be unfair and cause prejudice to the accused.
Disciplinary proceedings cannot be quashed solely on the ground of delay; the severity of allegations must also be considered.
Timeliness and adherence to rules in disciplinary proceedings are critical; undue delays can lead to quashing of charge sheets.
Disciplinary proceedings are invalid if based on prejudicial reliance on undisclosed inquiry reports and if initiated by an incompetent authority, infringing principles of justice.
Merely stating that huge financial losses are caused to the State would not suffice unless the charges are even prima-facie supported by any credible material placed before the court.
Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet.
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
