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

2014 Supreme(MP) 1189

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
R.S. Jha, J.
Nidhi Chaukse - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P. No. 10778-2014
Decided On : 06-08-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal, Adv.
For the Respondent:Advocate Assistant Solicitor General.

The court's decision was influenced by the ongoing proceedings against the main accused and the petitioner, leading to the direction for the petitioner to seek relief from the concerned Departmental Authority.

Headnote:

Interim Relief - Departmental Enquiry - The court found no ground for interference in the charge sheet issued to the petitioner, as the main accused had already been subjected to Departmental Enquiry and another case had been initiated against him. The petitioner was directed to move an application before the concerned Departmental Authority seeking relief.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition against the charge sheet issued to her for dereliction of duty and misplacing a walky talky, seeking stay or deferral of the Departmental Enquiry or the case initiated against her.

Finding of the Court:

The court found no ground for interference in the charge sheet and directed the petitioner to move an application before the concerned Departmental Authority seeking relief.

Issues: Admission and interim relief regarding the charge sheet issued to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the ongoing proceedings against the main accused and the petitioner, and found no grounds for interference in the charge sheet.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to move an application before the concerned Departmental Authority seeking relief.

JUDGMENT

       1.Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the charge sheet issued to the petitioner on 30.05.2014 wherein she has been charged for having committed dereliction of duty and for misplacing the walky talky that was deposited in the Malkhana.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the main accused has already been subjected to Departmental Enquiry and another case has been initiated against him and the proceedings are pending. It is submitted that in case the said person is found guilty, the petitioner would be subjected to lesser punishment or may even be exonerated. In the circumstances, it is prayed that the Departmental Enquiry or the case initiated against the petitioner be stayed or deferred till the matter is decided.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the respondents/authorities are proceeding against both, the main accused as well as the petitioner, no ground for interference in the charge sheet is made out.

5. The petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the effect that the petitioner may move an application before the concerned Departmental Authority seeking relief as prayed for. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner does so, the authority concerned shall consider the same and take a decision in that regard while proceeding further in the matter, expeditiously, in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.

C.C. as per rules.


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 Back to top