Latest news with #SudhirParmar
Hindustan Times
28-05-2025
- Hindustan Times
HC dismisses plea from ex-CBI judge Parmar in disciplinary proceedings
The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has dismissed a petition filed by former CBI special court judge Sudhir Parmar in a disciplinary proceedings case arising out of April 2023 criminal case. The HC bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice HS Grewal ruled that a delinquent judicial officer has no right to submit a reply to the chargesheet beyond the outer limit of 45 days as mandated by the rules. Now, the court has set a deadline of six months and 25 days as the outer limit for completion of all current and future disciplinary proceedings. It said, failure to adhere to the same would invite punitive action against the inquiry officer or any other erring personnel of the high court, it added. The petition was from Parmar, a suspended officer, seeking directions to the court's administrative side to allow filing of a reply to the chargesheet slapped on him at a belated stage. Parmar was booked in an FIR, under sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in April 2023. At that point of time, he was special CBI judge, Panchkula, and was accused of alleged favouritism towards some real estate developers, being probed by CBI and ED. FIRs pertaining to them were pending before the court presided over by Parmar. However, he failed to submit reply within the given time frame. He was suspended on April 27, 2023, and issued a chargesheet on July 24, 2023. The court observed that as per Rule 7 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 2016, upon being issued chargesheet, the delinquent employee has to submit his response within an outer limit of 45 days. However, he failed to do so. '..the inquiry officer ought to have proceeded ex-parte against the delinquent employee on his failure to file the written statement of defence and proceeded to examine the witnesses and the documents produced by the employer instead of adjourning the proceedings repeatedly on one pretext or the other,' the court observed with a direction to the inquiry officer to conclude the disciplinary proceedings by submitting the inquiry report as early as possible. Thereafter, the high court should also make its recommendations expeditiously, it said further asking the court's administration to ensure that in all ongoing as well as disciplinary inquiries to be initiated in the future, the timeline is adhered to.
Hindustan Times
28-05-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Reassigned case: HC turns down Gurugram builder's request to withdraw petition
The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) on Tuesday rejected a request from a Gurugram builder to withdraw his petition, seeking quashing of an FIR, wherein former judge of special CBI court, Haryana, Sudhir Parmar, is also an accused. This is the same case where on May 23, the bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu had rejected objections to withdraw the case from a judge after 'oral and written complaints' received by the chief justice. Justice Nagu in the May 23 order had said, the decision was taken to 'preserve the dignity and honour of the institution'. After withdrawing the case, the chief justice had ordered the listing of the case before him. The decision to withdraw the case was taken on May 10, two days before the judge, who had heard the matter, was to pronounce the final order. The petition is of real estate firm M3M's director, Roop Bansal, which seeks to quash a first information report filed by the Haryana anti-corruption bureau in April 2023 against Parmar, his nephew and M3M official Roop Bansal. During the hearing on Tuesday, appearing for Bansal, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi had requested that he be allowed to withdraw the petition. 'When an accused has right to file a petition, he should also have the right to withdraw it,' Singhvi had submitted. Justice Nagu, however, declined the request, orally observing, 'The way this case has been conducted, I would decline your request of the withdrawal.' The court later posted the matter for May 29. However, the detailed order neither mentions about the request nor about the court not yielding to the same. Notably, during the hearing on Monday, the court had hinted at possible 'forum shopping' by the petitioner in the case in hand. The case had to be adjourned on Monday as petitioner side's arguing counsel was not available. 'The present special bench has been created after carving out and encroaching upon the time meant for Division Bench-I and it is unfortunate that such a request is made on behalf of the petitioner in a case listed before this Special Bench,' the bench had recorded in its order on Monday. Senior Supreme Court lawyer Mukul Rohtagi had appeared on May 23 from petitioner's side. The case stems from an April 2023 FIR, registered against Sudhir Parmar, Ajay Parmar, Roop Bansal, and others under sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for offences relating to public servant being bribed, a public servant taking undue advantage without consideration from person concerned in proceedings or business transacted by such public servant, criminal misconduct by a public servant and criminal conspiracy. Sudhir Parmar, who at that point of time was special CBI judge, Panchkula, was accused of alleged favouritism towards Roop Bansal and his brother Basant Bansal of M3M and Lalit Goyal of the IREO Group. The Bansals and Goyal were accused in some FIRs being investigated by CBI and ED, pending before the court presided over by Parmar. .
