Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Union vs D.B on 9 August, 2010
Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/360/2006	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 360 of 2006
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

UNION
OF INDIA & 2 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

D.B.
GOHIL - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MRS
MAUNA M BHATT for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3.MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3. 
MR
BIREN A VAISHNAV for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 09/08/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)

Heard
learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners
wants that this part of the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal inhibiting the orders of the Disciplinary Authority wherein
the Tribunal has said as follows should go.

…the
opinion formed by disciplinary authority before referring the matter
to CVC for reconsideration of its advice. In case the said order is
against the applicant he can take recourse to such measures as may be
advised. The OA is disposed off with these directions. No order as to
costs.

Learned
counsel for the respondent was of the opinion that the Disciplinary
Authority cannot pass an order getting influenced by the opinion of
the CVC. It has to frame an independent opinion and what is to be
guiding factor is the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority and not
the dictates of the CVC.

Having
considered the rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion
that this part of the order of the Tribunal referred to hereinabove
requires to be quashed and this part should be substituted with only
words in accordance with law . Therefore, the matter is remanded
to the Disciplinary Authority to decide it in accordance with law by
framing its own opinion that it may take any aid in shaping
discretion but the opinion has to be exclusively of the Disciplinary
Authority.

With
the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed as agreed by
both the parties. Rule is discharged.

 


 


 


      (BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J)                 (S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J)
 


 


 


(pkn)

    

 
	   
      
      
	    
		      
	   
      
	  	    
		   Top
	   
      



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.176 seconds.