9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad allegedly harassed and victimized the Petitioner - There is nothing to suggest that there was no application of mind by the CBDT before issuing the charge sheet to the Petitioner - 6499 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 3-11-2008 - MADAN B. LOKUR and SURESH KAIT JJ. Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.K. Gangwani, Advocate for the respondents. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce Commission in this regard. Accordingly, he was not being repatriated to his parent department. 4. Since the Petitioner was not being repatriated, he filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition (c) No.9137 of 2006 seeking repatriation and that writ petition is pending disposal. NAFED subsequently repatriated the Petitioner back to his parent department and appears to have infor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal that the charge sheet was issued for mala fide reasons and that the Petitioner had made serious allegations of mala fides against the officers of NAFED but the Tribunal considered the allegations to be 'suggestive' and did not find adequate reason to interfere with the charge sheet. The Tribunal also noted that the Supreme Court has categorically expressed the view that when a charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the Petitioner relied upon State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna, 2000 (7) SCALE 731 to contend that since the charge sheet was issued for mala fide reasons, the Court can certainly interdict the departmental proceedings. There is no doubt about this proposition but unfortunately it does not apply to the facts of the present case. 8. According to learned counsel for the Petitioner, the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
