The Court dismissed a writ petition by a Judicial Officer challenging the Enquiry Officer's refusal to summon another Judicial Officer as a witness. Ruling that the statutory word 'shall' did not strip the EO of discretion to ascertain witness relevance.
The petition is dismissed; the pending application is disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~
Through: Mr Sarvesh Bisaria and Mr Anand Prakash, Advocates.
versus
HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Rajat Aneja and Ms Jia Kapur, Advocates.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
O R D E R % 30.10.2019
W.P.(C) 11449/2019 Page 1 of 2
order which forms the subject matter of the FIR, on the judicial side.
S.MURALIDHAR, J.
TALWANT SINGH, J.
OCTOBER 30, 2019/ rd
W.P.(C) 11449/2019 Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Enquiry Officer was bound to summon a Judicial Officer as a witness under Rule 14(17) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
The relevance of the proposed witness to the pending disciplinary enquiry.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
AANCHAL
HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL
S.MURALIDHAR
TALWANT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
