V D TRIVEDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V D Trivedi
UNION OF INDIA
Cited Judgements :-
PUWULA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY VS. GOVT OF A P
P V RAMA SARMA VS. STATE OF A P
ALAKH SINHA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
SWATHI S PATIL VS. UNION OF INDIA UOI RESENTED
R VISWANATHAN VS. AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADE
M DURAIRAJ VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
UNION OF INDIA VS. K K DHAWAN
[EXPLAINED AND LIMITED]
ZUNJARRAO BHIKAJI NAGARKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA
K MANICKAM VS. TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD
RAM SHANKER SHUKLA VS. STATE PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL U.P. LKO
S. MANICKAM VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES AND ORS.
M. PUGALENDRAN VS. THE COMMISSIONER, HR & CE DEPARTMENT
D. RAMESH VS. THE COMMISSIONER, USILAMPATTI MUNICIPALITY AND ORS.
RAHUL KAUSHIK VS. THE SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS & IT, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAWAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI 110 001
A MARIA DALLAS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS
S SARAVANAN VS. GENERAL MANAGER, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (MADURAI) LTD
V MUTHUKRISHNAN VS. CHIEF ENGINEER (DISTRIBUTION), TAMIL NADU GENERAL AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)Special leave granted.
(2.)This court on 19/09/1990 had directed the respondent to produce the Inquiry Report, The Inquiry Report dated 31/05/1990 submitted by Dr P. K. Bandhyopadhyaya, Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries is now placed before us. The Commissioner in his report has ultimately come to the conclusion that the charge framed against the appellant has not been proved. Respondent's counsel has suggested to us that since this has ultimately to go to the central Vigilance Commission and the final order is to be made by them we should not on the basis of the report make any final order. We are not impressed by the submission. We allow the appeals on the basis of findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and vacate the proceedings against the appellant as we are also of the view that the action taken by the appellant was quasi-judicial and should not have formed the basis of the disciplinary action.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.