Disposed

Pranav Kumar v. Union of India through Ministry of Railways & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Dec 2024W.P.(C)/16964/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a delayed final decision in disciplinary proceedings based on a charge memo. The Court, instead of issuing notice for arguments, directed the respondents to pass a final decision within six weeks and permitted the petitioner to revive the petition if the respondents failed to comply.

What did the court decide?

Direction to take final decision in disciplinary proceedings within six weeks; conditional revival of proceedings in case of non-compliance.

Pranav Kumar Vs Union of India through Ministry of… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~73

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 09.12.2024

¶4

W.P.(C) 16964/2024 PRANAV KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Anshuman, SPC with Ms.Laavanya Kaushik, GP.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶9

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

¶10

CM APPL. 71839/2024 (Exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 16964/2024, CM APPLS. 71838/2024 & 71840/2024

¶12

This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Charge Memo dated 31.03.2023, and praying for the quashing of the inquiry proceedings based thereon.

¶13

It is the case of the petitioner that though the inquiry report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority as far back as 24.11.2023, and in spite of several representations made by the petitioner, the final decision thereon has not been passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the final decision, having been delayed by the respondents, has vitiated the entire

¶14

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 16964/2024 Page 1 of 2 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:1 3.12.2024 21:33:57

¶15

disciplinary proceedings, and therefore, the impugned chargesheet deserves to be quashed by this Court.

¶16

Issue notice.

¶17

Notice is accepted by Mr. Anshuman, the learned counsel, on behalf of the respondents.

¶18

He prays for time to seek instructions on the same.

¶19

We are of the opinion that instead of granting time to the learned counsel for the respondents to seek instructions on the petition, the present petition can be disposed of by directing the respondents to take a final decision on the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, if not already taken, within a period of six weeks from today, and communicate its order to the petitioner within the said period. In case the respondents do not abide by this direction, it shall be open to the petitioner to get the present petition revived.

¶20

In case the order of the respondents is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, including on the validity of the proceedings, it shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with the law.

¶21

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner in the present petition.

¶22

The petition and the pending applications are disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶23

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶24

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶25

DECEMBER 9, 2024 /rv/DG

¶26

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 16964/2024 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:1 3.12.2024 21:33:57

¶29

Page 2 of 2

Pranav Kumar v. Union of India through Ministry of Railways & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pranav Kumar v. Union of India through Ministry of Railways & 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

Davinder Bajaj Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3), Delhi & Ors.

Vmvs Textiles Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 26(1) & Anr.

Mr. J. Chakraborty Vs M/S Gail (India) Limited & Anr.

Ashish Kumar Shukla Proprietor S.P.S Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Anr.

Ex Rect Bhuw Aneshw Ar Sah Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sh Jiwachh Prasad Roy Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Mohit International through, Prop. Harsh Anil Kumar Vasant Vs Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex (Exports) & Ors.

Echo International and Ors. Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs Import and Anr.

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management Vs Institute of Marketing and Management

Nirmal Chandra Mandal Vs Director General Cisf and Ors.

Dr Sarbjit Sharma Vs Delhi High Court

Yadav Exhibitors (P) Limited Vs Karur Vysya Bank Limited

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Sgt Anil Sharma (Retd)

Anil Kumar Vs Union of India