A.Mohamed Thaheer
28 May 2009 at 14:51
What will be the legal course of criminal action could be initiated against the official who furnished false particulars resulting to withholding of the retiral benefits for more than 5 years?
The details of the case is follows:
"A" retired on 30-09-2004.
On the date of retirement, there was one Disciplinary Proceeding was pending under Rule 9 (2) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Hence, all his retiral benefits were withheld.
On 28-04-2006, the Disciplinary Proceeding
was dropped and eligible for all retiral benefits with effect from 29-04-2008.
After a period of 6 months from the date of exoneration from the charge, the Head of the Department had sent a proposal for the payment of only provisional pension, but not for other retiral benefits such as gratuity, commutation of pension etc., for which the retired officer is legally entitled.
In the pension proposal form, the Head of the Department had purposely and vindictively furnished FALSE PARTICULARS
as if there is some criminal proceeding pending against the retired officer, (i.e)
on 20-11-2006. (after the acquittal of the only one charge pending on the date of retirement.This false information has resulted in withholding of other retiral benefits till date.
This false particulars have been furnished in contravention of rule 9 (6) (2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
By proving the false particulars furnished by the Head of the Department to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai,
the CAT directed to make the payment of the entire retiral benefits with interest, observing that the withholding of the retiral benefits is legally illegal.
But the High Court Chennai, quashed the CAT order without application of mind and without verifying the relevant documentary evidences submitted to the CAT and also without reading the entire judgment of the CAT who justified each and every point in detail after careful examination of all the relevant records in this case.
This is a very clear case of apparent error on the face of record and clear non application of mind and judgment is also PER INCURIUM.
The judgment of the High Court was given on 30-09-2008. Due to some valid reasons, no review application could be filed till date.
Now, the time has matured for making a review application for obvious reasons, which could be explained for condonation of delay for making review application?
Will the review application will be entertained at this stage or not, or it will be affected by the period of limitation for the delay of more than 6 months?
Please examine and give your expertise legal advice.
A.Mohamed Thaheer
28 May 2009 at 14:18
1)What further course of legal action could be taken, if some time bound direction of the High Court, Chennai, is not obliged by the petitioner who filed a writ petition for quashing the CAT order for making the retiral benefits to the retired officer? (while delivering judgment by quashing the CAT order, as prayed for by the Petitioner.)
2) Whether this failure of the part of the petitioner is legally contempt or not?
A.Mohamed Thaheer
28 May 2009 at 14:07
What is the relief, if the Bench of the High Court, Chennai quashes the CAT direction, without verifying the documentary evidences and application of mind with reference to the facts of the case, the relevant statutory rules and also without giving an opportunity for filing a detailed written counter and also in the absence of the detailed argument of the case by the respondent's side?
A.Mohamed Thaheer
24 May 2009 at 17:35
Please clarify the procedure for taking cognizance of the 0ffence by the competent Magistrate in the following circumstances:
1. Summon received from the court.
2. Appeared before the Magistrate obliging
the summon on a particular date.
3. Posted on some other day.
4. Appeared. charge sheet was given.
5. Posted for some other day.
6. Appeared, posted for some other day
again, without even putting the primary
question of "Are you guilty or not".
N.B: The reason for postponing the case
further and further till date, is
orally that the special powers to
conduct the case (PersonalDesignata
is yet to be received.
In the above circumstances, Please,
clarify whether we have to presume tnat
the cognizance of the offence is said to
be taken, even before conducting the
preliminary examination by putting the
first and foremost question of asking
"Are you guilty or not".
A.Mohamed Thaheer
19 May 2009 at 23:01
What action could be taken against a Govt. Official who gives a false information under this act, while he was in service, and subsequently retired for the purpose of claiming penalty under the act?
A.Mohamed Thaheer
19 May 2009 at 22:58
Please let me know the literal meaning and the legal implication of section 4 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988?
A.Mohamed Thaheer
19 May 2009 at 22:29
What criminal action could be taken against the police officers who filed a case of malicious prosecution? (after getting discharged from the court)
Whether, I can file a case for compensation before the Human Rights Commission, for the deprivation of my personal liberty under article 21 of the constitution? Is there any Jurisdiction for the Human Rights Commission for taking such type of cases 0n file for consideration?
A.Mohamed Thaheer
19 May 2009 at 22:24
Under article 226, of the constitution of India, the writ was allowed by quashing the CAT order, but on reading the judgment, there is clear apparent error on the face of record, and also the statutory rule under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 framed under article 309 of the Constitution has been com pletely ignored, and also without verification of the records and application of mind by the judge?
How this wrong judgment could be cured?
Whether the same Bench could correct the error knowing fully convinced that the judgment given by the Bench is wrong on the face of record.
A.Mohamed Thaheer
19 May 2009 at 22:15
Whether the Judge having territorial jurisdiction in conducting criminal cases, have powers under his official designata to conduct the case without getting powers under his personal designata for taking cognizance of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is specific and specific Act, only meant for the Govt.,/Quasi-Govt. employees and all public servants as defined under section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.
If the Judge takes cognizance of the offence, on a particular date on which the Judge had no powers to conduct the case under his personal designara, Is the cognizance taken by the Judge is valid?
Whether such cognizance taken on a particular date could be legally ratified, if the sanction of the competent authority is obtained subsequently, says after 9 months of taking cognizance of the offence.
What is the legal implication of official designata and personal designata?
Member Strength 9,46,715 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Contradictory judgments by different benches -what remedy
What is the course of legal action for getting natural justice, when contradictory judgments were delivered by two different High court, namely Delhi High Court judgment dated 04-07-2008 and High Court, Chennai dated 30-09-2008 respectively on the very same issue of criminal misappropriation of money to the tune of Rs, 25 lakhs ( BENCH OF THE Delhi High Court Judgment), and for Rs.11,255/- (BENCH OF THE Chennai High Court Judgment, under section 13 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
In the above said two judgments, Delhi High has given a very detailed judgment according to the statutory provisions of the relevant under the Central Civil Service Pension Rules, 1972, 80% in favour of the Accused for releasing all the retiral benefits due on the date retirement, EXCEPT UPHOLDING THE PAYMENT OF PROVISIONAL PENSION TILL THE FATE OF THE ACCUSED IN THE CRIMINAL CASE for the alleged misappropriated amount of more than 23 lakhs, read with 34 IPC>
But, the Bench of the Chennai High Court has given the judgment ADVERSELY AGAINST THE ACCUSED BY QUASHING THE CAT order which is very much similar to the Judgment of the Bench of the Delhi High Court dat
ed 04-07-2008.
The further pity in this case is the alleged misappropriation of amount is ONLY
R.11,255/- in which case also, it is pending yet to be proved in the court of law.
What is the legal remedy for the injustice done by the Bench of the High Court, Chennai?
d