9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nor has the inquiry resulted in altering the service conditions. In that context, the mere issuance of the show cause notice would not confer jurisdiction on this Court to entertain and appreciate the Writ Petition. In the absence of any right of the litigant being adversely affected, it is not seen how the learned Single Judge could have heard and ordered the Writ Petition. Appreciation of the facts is the domain of the statutory authorities, specifically the disciplinary authority in this case - the Appellant/Department is directed to produce the records relating to the refund claim, which has been the contention between the Appellant/Department and the Employee. The learned Single Judge has erred in taking up the role of the disciplinar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he intra-Court appeal is preferred assailing the order of the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge quashed the disciplinary proceedings midway, i.e., at the stage when the enquiry had been completed, the report had been submitted to the disciplinary authority, and the disciplinary authority had issued the second show cause notice enclosing the report and calling for his explanation. 3. The approach of the learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion, amounts to usurping the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority, which we find to be impermissible. The learned Single Judge could not have usurped the role of the disciplinary authority and scuttled the proceedings midway. The statute vests the authority, either to impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the charge itself could not have been framed in the absence of sufficient material. Additionally, he argues that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice, as neither the inquiry officer nor the presiding officer furnished the documents sought by him. 6. In our considered opinion, these are grounds of defense that could have been better appreciated by the disciplinary authority than by this Court in the exercise of powers vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion, has erred in taking up the role of the disciplinary authority and in attempting to substitute the opinion of the disciplinary authority with the opinion of this Court, which we find to be impermissible. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
