Writ against ChargeSheet

Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 121 : 2012 SCC OnLine SC 466 at page 572

10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the court. (Vide State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [(1996) 1 SCC 327] , Ulagappa v. Commr. [(2001) 10 SCC 639 : AIR 2000 SC 3603 (2)] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467] and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 304] .)

 

Doctrine of Merger

S.E. Graphites (P) Ltd. v. State of Telangana, (2020) 14 SCC 521

 

once a special leave petition has been granted, the doors for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court have been let open. Resultantly, the order impugned before the Supreme Court became an order appealed against and any order passed thereafter would be an appellate order and attract the doctrine of merger despite the fact that the order is of reversal or of modification or of affirming the order appealed against and including is a speaking or non-speaking one

Contempt is between contemnor and the court

Review - Error apparent - contrary to statutory scheme

Failure to notice applicable statutory regime is a ground for review.

(2019) 17 SCC 385 Sunil Vasudeva v. Sundar Gupta, paras. 26 & 29

Failure to notice applicable statutory regime is a ground for review.

Service Matter - extending benefit to similarly situated employees - fence sitters etc

State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, PARA 22

 

not necessary to set aside the consequential order

In State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam, (2001) 10 SCC 191 at page 192, the Supreme Court has held that :

 

9. Mr E.M.S. Anam, learned counsel for the petitioner Vadavucode-Puthencruz Grama Panchayat submitted that pursuant to the impugned order learned Single Judge had passed consequential orders and he pleads that this Court may interfere with the said consequential orders also. We find it unnecessary because when once the main impugned order is set aside, any other consequential order made pursuant to the same would automatically go.