Janardan Panjiara Vs. Dumka Central Cooperative Bank Through M.D. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant.orderramesh kumar merathia, j.1. heard the parties finally.2. the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.1.2007 (annexure 5) by which he has been compulsorily retired from service under the purported powers under section 14(3) of the jharkhand cooperative societies act (for short 'the act').3. the petitioner's case is that a departmental proceeding was started. in 1986 the suspension was revoked and the departmental proceeding was ordered to continue. but without any findings in any departmental proceeding, the said order of punishment has been passed. it is further submitted that in november, 2006 the petitioner was promoted.learned counsel appearing for the respondents could not produce anything to show that any enquiry was held in which the petitioner was found guilty. the respondents also could not show any provision under which the petitioner could be punished without holding any enquiry.4. in the circumstances, the order dated 16.1.2007 (annexure 5) is set aside with liberty to the respondents concerned to act in accordance with law.5. with these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. however, no costs.

Judgment:

ORDER

Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.

1. Heard the parties finally.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.1.2007 (Annexure 5) by which he has been compulsorily retired from service under the purported powers under Section 14(3) of the Jharkhand Cooperative Societies Act (for short 'the Act').

3. The petitioner's case is that a departmental proceeding was started. In 1986 the suspension was revoked and the departmental proceeding was ordered to continue. But without any findings in any departmental proceeding, the said order of punishment has been passed. It is further submitted that in November, 2006 the petitioner was promoted.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents could not produce anything to show that any enquiry was held in which the petitioner was found guilty. The respondents also could not show any provision under which the petitioner could be punished without holding any enquiry.

4. In the circumstances, the order dated 16.1.2007 (Annexure 5) is set aside with liberty to the respondents concerned to act in accordance with law.

5. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. However, no costs.