Disposed

Smt. Jagdevi @ Jagdei v. the General Manager (Vigilance), Northern Railway & Ors.

Delhi HC8 Jan 2019W.P.(C)/54/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to expedite a pending vigilance inquiry against Respondent No. 4, alleging he obtained his job by forgery. The court disposed of the petition directing the respondents to complete the inquiry within 8 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to complete pending vigilance inquiry against Respondent No. 4 within 8 weeks.

Smt. Jagdevi @ Jagdei Vs the General Manager… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~28

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 54/2019

¶4

SMT. JAGDEVI @ JAGDEI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. P.K. Dash and Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE GENERAL MANAGER (VIGILANCE), NORTHERN RAILWAY & ORS.

¶7

..... Respondents Through Mr. Harsh Pandit and Mr. J. K. Singh, Standing Counsel for Railways, Advs. for R-1, R-2 and R-3

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT O R D E R % 08.01.2019

¶10

Crl.M.A 50478/2018 (Exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

This application is, accordingly, disposed of

¶13

W.P.(C) 54/2019

¶14

Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby directing the respondents no. 1 to 3 to expedite the vigilance inquiry pending against the Respondent no.4 and till the final outcome of the said inquiry the respondent no.4 be suspended from his job.

¶15

The husband of the petitioner died on 27.05.2003 and after death of her husband, the petitioner got the pension of her deceased husband. In the month of May, 2016 the petitioner had made several complaints to the respondents no. 1 to 3 against respondent no.4, who

¶16

got the job of late Sh. Ramdyal, husband of the petitioner on compensatory grounds by furnishing forged documents. The petitioner further made complaints to respondent no. 1 to 3 against respondent no.4 on various dates i.e. 28.03.2018, 04.07.2018, 11.07.2018 and 13.07.2018 and 12.09.2018. The respondent no.3 had replied to the petitioner vide its letter dated 5.7.2018 that the case against the respondent no.4 is pending before the respondent no.1. More than two years have been passed, however, the inquiry pending against the respondent no.4 has not been completed.

¶17

In view of the above facts and circumstances, without issuing notices to the respondents, I hereby dispose of the present petition directing the respondents to complete the inquiry pending against the respondent no.4 within 8 weeks from the receipt of this order.

¶18

Petition is disposed of.

¶19

Order dasti .

¶20

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J

¶21

JANUARY 08, 2019 gb

Smt. Jagdevi @ Jagdei v. the General Manager (Vigilance), Northern Railway & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jagdevi @ Jagdei v. the General Manager (Vigilance), Northern Railway & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manas Ranjan Mahapatra Vs National Book Trust and Anr.

Prabhjot Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Pooja Mahajan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ram Bahadur Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sh. Bhuwan Chandra Upreti and Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Pitam Singh & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Moet Hennessy India Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Special Range - 6, New Delhi & Anr.

Moet Hennessy India Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Special RANGE-6, New Delhi & Anr.

Manas Ranjan Mahapatra Vs National Book Trust and Anr.

Rekha Mishra Vs M/S Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.

Dr. Satish Chander Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dr. (Ms.) Banti M. Singh Vs University of Delhi and Anr.

H. K. Sharma Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ms. Sweety Bhalla Vs Industrial Financial Corporation of India Ltd. (Ifci)