Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Dilip Kumar Vs. Vaishali Kshetriya GramIn Bank and ors.

Dilip Kumar vs Vaishali Kshetriya GramIn Bank and ors.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Patna Decided May 16, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/134410

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
L.P.A. No. 619/2002
Subject
;Service
Disposition
Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 2. At best, the petitioner-appellant could explain that it was only a temporary misappropriation.

Key legal issue
;Service
Outcome / disposition
Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dilip Kumar

Respondent

Vaishali Kshetriya GramIn Bank and ors.

Excerpt

- - 2. at best, the petitioner-appellant could explain that it was only a temporary misappropriation.1. this appeal has been filed against the order, dated april 9, 2002, on c.w.j.c. no. 4343 of 2002. the petitioner-appellant dilip kumar, who was working with the vaishali kshetriya gramin bank, faced a departmental proceeding and the misdemeanor virtually bordered on making allegations against him for misappropriation. 2. at best, the petitioner-appellant could explain that it was only a temporary misappropriation. two constituents had given him a certain amount of money to deposit in their accounts which the petitioner-appellant did not but retained it. for other charges he was given an opportunity either to deny or accept them but he did not do. after a departmental inquiry, he was given a punishment of reduction of two increments in the incremental scale for four years with the postponement having effect of postponing future increments. 3. the petitioner-appellant is lucky that he was not dismissed from service. there is no occasion for the court to interfere with the order of the learned judge of the writ petition. 4. the court needs to record in this order that the lawyer, who has filed the appeal, has not appeared and his brief holder sri pankaj kumar has submitted on the appeal. 5. dismissed. 6. a copy of this order be sent to the bank concerned.

Full Judgment

1. This appeal has been filed against the order, dated April 9, 2002, on C.W.J.C. No. 4343 of 2002. The petitioner-appellant Dilip Kumar, who was working with the Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank, faced a departmental proceeding and the misdemeanor virtually bordered on making allegations against him for misappropriation.

2. At best, the petitioner-appellant could explain that it was only a temporary misappropriation. Two constituents had given him a certain amount of money to deposit in their accounts which the petitioner-appellant did not but retained it. For other charges he was given an opportunity either to deny or accept them but he did not do. After a departmental inquiry, he was given a punishment of reduction of two increments in the incremental scale for four years with the postponement having effect of postponing future increments.

3. The petitioner-appellant is lucky that he was not dismissed from service. There is no occasion for the Court to interfere with the order of the learned Judge of the writ petition.

4. The Court needs to record in this order that the lawyer, who has filed the appeal, has not appeared and his brief holder Sri Pankaj Kumar has submitted on the appeal.

5. Dismissed.

6. A copy of this order be sent to the bank concerned.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial