Sunday, Jul 11, 2004
Sunday, Jul 11, 2004 |
| New Delhi | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | New Delhi
By Our Staff Reporter
NEW DELHI, JULY 10. The Delhi High Court has stayed a Court of Inquiry against a brigadier. A Division Bench of the Court comprising Justice D.K. Jain and Justice Madan B. Lokur stayed the proceedings when Major (Retd.) K. Ramesh, counsel for Brig. J.K. Bansal, submitted that the initiation of the Inquiry was unlawful as the High Court had earlier quashed the charges on the basis of which the Court of Inquiry had been initiated against the Brigadier. Major Ramesh submitted that the Court of Inquiry had the same old charges on the basis of which the Institute of Nuclear Medicines and Allied Sciences (INMAS) of the Western Command of the Army, where the Brigadier worked, had earlier proceeded against him under the General Court Martial proceedings. He further submitted that since the fresh proceedings had been initiated on the basis of the charges, which were the subject matter of inquiry in the earlier proceedings, it was violative of the High Court judgment. Brig. Bansal had challenged an order by the INMAS whereby he had been attached with the Headquarters, Technical Group, EME, Delhi, on the basis of a complaint by a civilian that the Army officer had got his daughter admitted to the Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) course in Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology here by submitting a false certificate of his disability. In the petition, Major Ramesh submitted that the penal action on the part of the Director of the Institute was whimsical and illegal, as he had passed the order without holding a Court of Inquiry to ascertain the allegations in the complaint. Condemning the conduct of the INMAS, a Division Bench comprising Justice Vijender Jain and Justice H.R. Malhotra said: "We deprecate the conduct of the respondent. On the one hand it is seeking adjournment when the Court was to render judgment, on the other hand... ... ... ... an order has been passed for initiation of the General Court Martial proceedings; all these actions, to say the least, are simply to overreach this Court.'' Holding the charges against the Brigadier as `motivated' and `malafide', the Bench had quashed the General Court Martial proceedings saying that "our judicial conscience does not permit us to perpetuate an act of irrationality, arbitrariness and illegality.'' On the plea by Major Ramesh that Contempt of Court proceedings should be initiated against the INMAS for not implementing certain directions by the High Court in favour of the petitioner, the Bench gave the respondent time till July 22 to comply with the orders.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2004, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
