Jagnnath Ram and Saryoo Prasad Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand, - Court Judgment |
| Service |
| Jharkhand High Court |
| Apr-20-2010 |
| D.N. Patel, J. |
| Jagnnath Ram and Saryoo Prasad Singh |
| The State of Jharkhand, ;commissioner-cum-secretary, Human Resources Department, ;The Director, Prim |
.....the murder charge. [para 9]
it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10]
it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15]
held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16].....hearing before the inquiry officer.3. in view of the aforesaid submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also looking to the nature of charges, levelled against the present petitioners, i hereby direct the respondent-state to complete the departmental inquiry initiated against the present petitioners as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this court. the petitioners shall cooperate the hearing proceedings before the inquiry officer. no unnecessary adjournment will be given by the inquiry officer to the petitioners as well as to the representatives of the presenting officer of the respondent authorities.4. in view of the aforesaid directions, this petition is, hereby disposed of. liberty is reserved with the petitioners to move before this court, in case of any difficulty and if the inquiry is not completed with the aforesaid time limit.
D.N. Patel, J.
1. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have suspended with effect from 26th August, 2009 and till today, departmental proceedings have not been completed and, therefore, let a suitable direction, either to revoke the suspension or to complete the departmental inquiry within stipulated time, be given to the respondents because enough time has been elapsed after the suspension from August 2009 onwards. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have not committed any misconduct worth the claim.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that now a counter affidavit has been filed and the departmental proceedings will be completed preferably and approximately within a period of one month, subject to the condition that the petitioner should cooperate the hearing before the inquiry officer.
3. In view of the aforesaid submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also looking to the nature of charges, levelled against the present petitioners, I hereby direct the respondent-State to complete the departmental inquiry initiated against the present petitioners as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. The petitioners shall cooperate the hearing proceedings before the inquiry officer. No unnecessary adjournment will be given by the inquiry officer to the petitioners as well as to the representatives of the presenting officer of the respondent authorities.
4. In view of the aforesaid directions, this petition is, hereby disposed of. Liberty is reserved with the petitioners to move before this Court, in case of any difficulty and if the inquiry is not completed with the aforesaid time limit.