- (1.) These two writ petitions were heard by this Court earlier and the judgment was reserved on 13/07/2017 whereafter the judgment was pronounced on 29/08/2017 and both the writ petitions were allowed with certain directions.
(2.) DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.300/2018 and 308/2018, preferred by the respondents assailing the aforesaid judgment dated 29/08/2017, were heard by the Division Bench and following order was passed on16/05/2018:- "Heard on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The reasons have been assigned for delay in filing the appeal. We are satisfied with the aforesaid and otherwise application has not been seriously opposed by the non-appellant. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. After arguing the case at length, it is submitted by learned counsel for the non-appellant that many issues raised by him have not been dealt with. It is more specific on fairness of the enquiry. Learned counsel for the non-appellant has given specific instances on unfairness of the enquiry. It is due to non-supply of the documents demanded by him and in fact no enquiry was held. The findings were recorded with predetermination. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the non-appellant that the interference in the order of punishment has not been made in reference to those arguments though said to have been raised. The prayer is made to remand the case back to the learned Single Judge so that he may raise all the issues with its adjudication and for that even to set aside the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the judgment is set aside, he would have no objection for remand of the case. No party should cause injustice on any ground. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 29.8.2017 passed by learned Single Judge is set aside with remand of the case to the learned Single Judge with a request to decide the petitions afresh. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of. A copy of this order be placed in connected appeal."
(3.) The Apex Court in the case of Roma Sonkar Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission & Anr.: 2018(10) SCALE 222, while examining the question regarding intra-court appeal, has held as under:- "3. We have very serious reservations whether the Division Bench in an intra court appeal could have remitted a writ petition in the matter of moulding the relief. It is the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench exercised the same jurisdiction. Only to avoid inconvenience to the litigants, another tier of screening by the Division Bench is provided in terms of the power of the High Court but that does not mean that the Single Judge is subordinate to the Division Bench. Being a writ proceeding, the Division Bench was called upon, in the intra court appeal, primarily and mostly to consider the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, in our view, the Division Bench needs to consider the appeal(s) on merits by deciding on the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, instead or remitting the matter to the learned Single Judge.";