Mahendra Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar - Court Judgment |
| Criminal |
| Supreme Court of India |
| Feb-16-2001 |
| G.B. Pattanaik and; U.C. Banerjee, JJ. |
| 2001(2)ALD(Cri)54; 2002CriLJ941; (2002)10SCC678 |
| Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482 |
| Mahendra Singh and ors. |
| State of Bihar |
| Appeal allowed |
.....despite a clear provisions contained in the rules did not terminate the services of the respondent. he was allowed to continue in service. it is neither denied nor disputed that despite the fact that he did not pass the departmental accounts examination, he was otherwise a competent officer. in fact, he has been permitted to officiate on a higher post. in a situation of this nature, the appellants had a duty to give him a warning. his case should have been treated in terms of the rules. failure on the part of the state to do so, has seriously prejudiced him. had such warning being given, he could have appreared in the examination. however, he was allowed to continue in service and received the salary. what is denied is only the benefit of additional increment which can be granted on fulfilling certain conditions. in such circumstances, there may not be justification for payment of compensation. instead, the appellants should be directed not to deny pensionary benefits to the respondent on the ground that his services were not regularized/confirmed. such direction is necessary only if there is a move to deny pensionary benefits.
.....extension of time by invoking jurisdiction under section 482, cr. p. c. that application having been rejected, they further filed application. that application again stood dismissed. they filed 3rd application and when that application stood dismissed they have approached this court. there cannot be any dispute that the accused were not entitled to file so many applications before the high court invoking jurisdiction under section 482. but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and in view of the statement that the accused were ill-advised to file number of applications before the high court, and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the state in the interest of justice, we allow this appeal and grant a month's time from today to make the deposit of fine, as directed by the high court, failing which the default clause would operate.
1. Leave granted
2. The appellants stood convicted under Section 324, IPC and were sentenced to Imprisonment for 6 months. On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to period already undergone and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo imprisonment R.I. for 3 months. During the period prescribed for payment of fine, the accused could not deposit the amount in question. Accused filed an application for extension of time by invoking jurisdiction under section 482, Cr. P. C. That application having been rejected, they further filed application. That application again stood dismissed. They filed 3rd application and when that application stood dismissed they have approached this Court. There cannot be any dispute that the accused were not entitled to file so many applications before the High Court invoking jurisdiction under Section 482. But having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and in view of the statement that the accused were ill-advised to file number of applications before the High Court, and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the State in the interest of justice, we allow this appeal and grant a month's time from today to make the deposit of fine, as directed by the High Court, failing which the default clause would operate.