Allahabad Court March 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Om Naresh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2087
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and also perused the record.2. By means of this petition the petitioner challenges validity of order dated 16.3.1998 whereby the petitioner who is holding post of Inspector of Police, has been placed under suspension by the respondent.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the provisions of Rule 17 of U. P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 only the appointing authority or any other authority under whom the petitioner is working, is empowered to pass order of suspension. The Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareli has no jurisdiction to pass the order, therefore, the impugned order of suspension is liable to be quashed.4. It is well-settled law that the order of suspension can be passed by the appointing authority or the authority superior to the appointing authority, punishing authority as well as by the controlling authority. A reference in ...
Shankar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)2UPLBEC896
D.K. Seth, J.1. By an order dated 22.11.1995 the confidential report/entry for the year 1994-95 in respect of the petitioner's service was withheld on the ground that he was found guilty of both the charges in the enquiry held against him. By another order dated 22.11.1995 the petitioner having been found guilty of both the charges in respect whereof, he was subjected to a domestic enquiry he was dismissed from service. These two orders are Annexures 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition and have since been challenged by means of this writ petition.2. Shri M.L. Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner had assailed the said orders on the ground that the petitioner has suffered double jeopardy. Inasmuch as by reason of finding of guilt in the domestic enquiry, the petitioner has been awarded punishment of withholding of entry in the service record with regard to integrity and thereafter second punishment of dismissal was awarded to him out of the self same charges. There cannot be two...
Onkar Nath Dubey and ors. Vs. Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Work ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)2UPLBEC1236
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioners' name was included in the select list in serial Nos. 15, 16 and 8, contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Subsequently by an order dated 5th April, 1994 contained in Annexure 3-A to the writ petition, the selection of the petitioners was cancelled. The said order referred to an order dated 16th March, 1994, which is Annexure C.A.-2 to the writ petition.2. Mr. S.N. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the question of promotion is on the basis of merit alone provided the persons in different department are eligible. For which, according to him, a waiting list is to be prepared for filling up the different posts. He relies on certain Rules contained in Chapter VI of the Recruitment Rules for filling up the post either by promotion or by transfer. He also refers to Chapter VII in which preparation of waiting list is provided for. Therefore, the cancellation order cannot be sustained.3. Mr. K.R. Singh, learned Standing Counsel ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›