State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Brajendra Singh and anr.

State of U.P. and ors. vs Brajendra Singh and anr.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Allahabad Decided Apr 23, 2008

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/493462

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/493462
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Yatindra Singh and; Ran Vijay Singh, JJ.
Decided On: Apr 23, 2008
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

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

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of U.P. and ors.

Respondent

Brajendra Singh and anr.

Legal References

Reported In: [2008(117)FLR925]

Excerpt

.....the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. .....could not be taken at the time of hearing of the claim petition.7. the case of the contesting respondent throughout and even before the tribunal was that he had not taken any alcohol but had taken antipar medicine on the advise of the doctor and it is because of this that smell of alcohol was coming out.8. if this was the case then the burden was upon the contesting respondent to produce the doctor or for that matter to produce the subscription, to show that he has taken such medicine.9. the tribunal has said that while conducting the inquiry rules had not been followed but apart from the finding that the statement of witnesses have not been given or doctor's report was not proved. this finding is incorrect as it has been held in preceding paragraphs. no other specific rules has been indicated. there is no merit in this submission.10. the termination order and the appellate order indicate that this is not the first time that the contesting respondent was punished. the other punishments, apart, from others, include abusing under influence of alcohol, running away during the duty, stealing tv from javan club. considering entire circumstances, the punishment awarded to him is not excessive. in view of this order of tribunal dated 28.5.2004 is quashed and termination order dated 21.3.1998 and appellate order dated 23.12.1998 is upheld. the writ petition is allowed.

Full Judgment

Yatindra Singh and Ran Vijay Singh, JJ.

1. Sri Brijendra Singh respondent No. 1 (the contesting respondent) was a constable in PAC. He was found in state of intoxication on 9.11.1997. He was suspended on 21.11.1997 and; thereafter a charge-sheet dated 14.1.1998 was served upon him. An inquiry was conducted and inquiry report was submitted. The contesting respondent was given a show cause notice. Considering his reply he was dismissed from service on 21.3.1998. He filed an appeal which was dismissed on 23.12.1998. The contesting respondent filed claim-petition No. 767 of 1999. It was allowed on 28.5.2004, hence the present writ petition.

2. We have heard the Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Yadav for the contesting respondent.

3. The Tribunal has allowed the claim petition of the contesting respondent on the ground that:

(i) The contesting respondent was not given the statement of the witnesses;

(ii) The principles of natural justice has been violated;

(iii) The doctor's report has not been proved:

(iv) Rules have not been followed.

4. After the inquiry was conducted, the contesting respondent was given a show cause notice. He filed a reply against the same. Thereafter he filed an appeal and also claim petition. The contesting respondent never took a plea that statement of witnesses was not been given. Photostat copy of signed document of the contesting respondent has been filed before this Court. It shows that all the statements were served upon the contesting respondent. If the statement had not been served upon the contesting respondent then he should have taken this plea either in reply to show cause notice or at least before the Tribunal. This has not been done. It could not be taken at the time of hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has committed illegality in allowing the claim petition.

5. Apart from the finding that the statements of witnesses were not given, no other reason has been indicated for holding that principle of natural justice have been violated. We have already negated the same. This submission also has no merits.

6. Same is the case so far as doctor's report is concerned. In case it was not proved then the objection ought to have been taken in the proceeding or at least in response to show cause notice. It was never done. This plea could not be taken at the time of hearing of the claim petition.

7. The case of the contesting respondent throughout and even before the Tribunal was that he had not taken any alcohol but had taken Antipar medicine on the advise of the doctor and it is because of this that smell of alcohol was coming out.

8. If this was the case then the burden was upon the contesting respondent to produce the doctor or for that matter to produce the subscription, to show that he has taken such medicine.

9. The Tribunal has said that while conducting the inquiry rules had not been followed but apart from the finding that the statement of witnesses have not been given or doctor's report was not proved. This finding is incorrect as it has been held in preceding paragraphs. No other specific rules has been indicated. There is no merit in this submission.

10. The termination order and the appellate order indicate that this is not the first time that the contesting respondent was punished. The other punishments, apart, from others, include abusing under influence of alcohol, running away during the duty, stealing TV from Javan Club. Considering entire circumstances, the punishment awarded to him is not excessive. In view of this order of Tribunal dated 28.5.2004 is quashed and termination order dated 21.3.1998 and appellate order dated 23.12.1998 is upheld. The writ petition is allowed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2008 Same Parties State of U.P. and ors. vs Brajendra Singh and anr. Same Subject Service Same Judge Yatindra Singh and; Ran Vijay Singh, JJ.

Service