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.

State of Orissa Vs. Subash Chandra Rath

State of Orissa vs Subash Chandra Rath

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Orissa Decided Oct 20, 2006
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/535008

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
Orissa High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

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

- LABOUR & SERVICES Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b) Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.198...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Orissa

Respondent

Subash Chandra Rath

Legal References

Reported In
103(2007)CLT280; 2006(II)OLR831

Excerpt

- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. sujit barman roy, c.j.1. respondent subash chandra rath was at the relevant point of time appointed as veterinary asst. surgeon at belpahar. he was accused for having taken a bribe of rs. 200/- for giving a false certificate regarding the value of certain buffalo. the alleged incident occurred on 2.8.1986. since then, little more than two decades' time has elapsed. the amount of bribe allegedly taken by the respondent was for a paltry sum of rs. 200/-. such conduct of the respondent must be highly deprecated when it is done by a responsible officer of the government, namely, the veterinary asst. surgeon. but, as a long a time has elapsed since the occurrence had taken place and the appeal was filed in the year 1994 and since then, more than 12 years' time has elapsed, and for this inordinate delay in disposing of the appeal the court cannot lay blame on the respondent, i am of the view that it would be a sheer travesty of justice to alter the finding of acquittal at this belated stage.2. the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

Sujit Barman Roy, C.J.

1. Respondent Subash Chandra Rath was at the relevant point of time appointed as Veterinary Asst. Surgeon at Belpahar. He was accused for having taken a bribe of Rs. 200/- for giving a false certificate regarding the value of certain buffalo. The alleged incident occurred on 2.8.1986. Since then, little more than two decades' time has elapsed. The amount of bribe allegedly taken by the respondent was for a paltry sum of Rs. 200/-. Such conduct of the respondent must be highly deprecated when it is done by a responsible officer of the Government, namely, the Veterinary Asst. Surgeon. But, as a long a time has elapsed since the occurrence had taken place and the appeal was filed in the year 1994 and since then, more than 12 years' time has elapsed, and for this inordinate delay in disposing of the appeal the Court cannot lay blame on the respondent, I am of the view that it would be a sheer travesty of justice to alter the finding of acquittal at this belated stage.

2. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial