Suchit Prasad S/O Sudhir Prasad v. the Union of India Thr the Secretary, Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour and Ors.

Bombay HC17 May 2024WP/7251/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order rejecting the engagement of a Defence Assistant. The Court held that the Assistant's prior role as Officer-in-charge involved reviewing enquiry records, constituting association with the proceedings, thus attracting the restriction under Rule 8B(iii) of the EPF Staff (CC & A) Rules.

What the court decided

AI extract

Suchit Prasad S/O Sudhir Prasad vs the Union of India… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

8-WP-7251-2024.docx

¶2

Neeta Sawant

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7251 OF 2024

¶5

Suchit Prasad } .. Petitioner : Versus : Union of India and Ors. } .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Rajeev N. Kumar a/w. Mr. Amey Kanse, for the Petitioner. Ms. Neeta Masurkar, for the Respondent.

¶7

Coram : Sandeep V. Marne, & Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ. (Vacation Court) Dated : 17 May 2024.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

By this petition, Petitioner challenges Order dated 2 May 2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ( Tribunal ), Mumbai rejecting Original Application No. 457/2024 fled by the Petitioner for allowing engagement of Shri. Ramesh Chandra Singh to act his Defence Assistant in the disciplinary proceedings.

¶10

The Tribunal has relied upon Rule 8B(iii) of the Employees Provident Fund Staf (CC & A) Rules, 1971 and has held that Shri. Ramesh Chandra Singh was associated with the case at some stage. This was also the observation recorded by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in the order dated 16 April 2024. Perusal of the records produced before us would indicate that there is atleast one communication in the form of order dated 25 July 2022 by which Shri. Ramesh Chandra Singh had directed Petitioner to

¶11

_____Page No. 1 of 2 ____ 17 May 2024

¶12

8-WP-7251-2024.docx

¶13

Neeta Sawant

¶14

appear before the Enquiry Ofcer on 9 July 2022 acting in his capacity as the Officer-in-charge of Regional Office, Raichur. The office order refers to the daily order sheets of preliminary enquiry conducted against the Petitioner. It therefore cannot be said that Shri. Ramesh Chandra Singh was not associated with the disciplinary proceedings in any manner. In his capacity as Officer-in-charge, Shri. Singh had occasion to go through the daily orders of the enquiry and has possibly communicated with the Enquiry Officer. Association of Shri. Singh with the enquiry, albeit for limited or insignificant purpose, is thus writ large. The restriction of Rule 8B(iii) would thus apply to the present case. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected .

¶15

[ Dr. Neela Gokhale, J. ]

¶16

Digitally signed by NEETA NEETA SHAILESH SHAILESH SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2024.05.17 16:28:52 +0530

¶17

_____Page No. 2 of 2 ____ 17 May 2024

Suchit Prasad S/O Sudhir Prasad v. the Union of India Thr the Secretary, Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Suchit Prasad S/O Sudhir Prasad v. the Union of India Thr the Secretary, Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawlas Namdev Dabhade vs State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Shakir Intekhab Quereshi vs New Kamal Kunj Co-Operative Housing

Adit Shriniwas Yargop vs Authorized Officer, Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Nuzhat Irfan Mohamed Furniturewala vs Union of India through the Government Pleader and 2 Ors.

Mayank Bharat Soni vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

A.H. Wheelerand Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs the Sr. Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial Mumbai Division)