Allahabad Court January 2001 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.
Jagdish Prasad Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC596
Pradeep Kant and R.D. Shukla, JJ.1. The petitioner being aggrieved by an order passed by U.P. Public Services Tribunal dated 31.3.1994, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner was appointed as peon in the year 1960 in the Sales Tax Department, but while being posted in the office of the Commissioner Sales Tax, Lucknow, was placed under suspension vide order dated 31st January, 1985 and the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax (Administration) was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was served with it charge-sheet in which the petitioner was charged that he was directly or indirectly giving cooperation to a Firm namely; M/s. Shanti Enterprises and has violated the Government Servant Conduct Rules 3 and 15.3. A reply was submitted to the charge-sheet denying all the charges by stating that he has no concern or interest in the business of his son who was actually the owner of the said Firm. In the reply the petitioner requested for ...
Dinesh Kumar Asthana Vs. Collector, Azamgarh/Deputy Collector, Tahsil ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)AWC785; (2001)1UPLBEC867
A. K. Yog, J.1. Dinesh Kumar Asthana, petitioner was first engaged on May 5, 1980, according to him, as per prescribed procedure, as Seasonal Collection Amin and he has been working throughout as such. Some more Seasonal Collection Amins were engaged by the Department and some of such persons felt aggrieved by the action of the respondents and raised a dispute that persons Junior to those (including the petitioner) were ignored arbitrarily and for no legal sanction, some of the Seasonal Collection Amins, who were junior to them, were absorbed against the substantive vacancies of Collection Amins. Some of those aggrieved persons, including the present petitioner, filed C.M.W.P. No. Nil of 1993, Sri Srikant Mishra and 9 others v. State of U. P. and others. The said petition was decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated February 9, 1993 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) following the judgment of this Court in C.M.W.P. No. 43069 of 1992 decided on November 23, 1992, Ramanand Gupt...
Union of India Through Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Varanasi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)AWC789; (2001)1UPLBEC586
Binod Kumar Roy and D. R.Chaudhary, JJ.1. The petitionerchallenges validity of an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.2. A perusal of the impugned order shows, inter alia, that the application of respondent No. 1 claiming payment of salary for the period 4.3.1979 to 26.8.1993 has been allowed on a finding that it is no doubt correct that the civil court has not specifically directed payment of salary but once the termination order of the applicant has been declared to be illegal, void and in-operative and there has been no material on record to show that he was gainfully employed during the period in question, he is entitled for the back wages for the period in question as the principles of 'No work no pay' will not be applicable to his case for the reason because he was willing to work but was kept away from work for no fault of his own and that he is deemed to have worked during that period.3...
Dukhi and ors. Etc. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2534
U.S. Tripathi, J 1. The above two appeals have been preferred against the judgement and order dated 5-4-1980 passed by Sri J.M. Srivastava, the then learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, in Sessions Trial No. 192 of 1979 and judgement and order dated 30-5-1984 passed by Sri Ramji Lal, the then learned -Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, in S.T. No. 90 of 1981 respectively, convicting the appellants of both the appeals under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, 323 read with 149, I.P.C. and sentencing each of the appellants Dukhi, Raghunath, Ram Prasad and Jageshwar to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C.R.I. for a period of 5 years and fine of Rs. 2000 - under Section 307 read with 149 I.P.C. and R.I. for a period of six months under Section 323 read with 149 I.P.C. Appellant Jageshwar. Raghunath and Ram Prasad were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year under Section 148 I.P.C. and Dukhi was further sentenced ...
Sarnam Singh Vs. Deputy Registrar, Co-op. Societies, Jhansi and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)AWC687; (2001)1UPLBEC583
D. S. Sinha and Lakshmi Bihari,JJ.1. As long back as on 19th May. 1988, a Division Bench of this Court directed that in addition to normal mode of service, the petitioner shall serve respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 personally outside Court within three weeks, and file affidavit of service within six weeks. Despite lapse of interminable period of more than twelve years, the petitioner has not bothered to comply the said order of the Court dated 19th May, 1988. Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam, who is present on behalf of the petitioner, has not been able to point out any material on record indicating compliance of the order of the Court dated 19th May, 1988.2. Although Sri M. P. Gupta has put in appearance for respondent No.3, yet respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not been served and are unrepresented.3. While directing the petitioner to take steps for service upon the respondents as aforesaid, the Court also granted interim order staying operation of the impugned order which is still operative and the pe...
Lallan Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)AWC697; [2001(88)FLR989]; (2001)1UPLBEC879
O. P. Garg, J.1. The short and moot point for determination and consideration in the present petition is whether a Government servant can be placed under suspension pending departmental inquiry or in contemplation thereof by an order passed by an officer higher in rank than the appointing authority? The controversy has arisen in the wake of the following facts. 2. The petitioner, who is a Boring Technician in the Department of Minor Irrigation and is posted at Vikas Khand, Virnao, district Ghazipur, has been placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental inquiry by order dated 21.9.2000 by the Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Allahabad. There is no dispute about the fact that the services of the petitioner are governed by U. P. Laghu Sinchai Boring Providhigya Sewa Niyamawali, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Niyamawali') and in pursuance of Rule 3 (ka), theExecutive Engineer, (Adhishashi Abhiyanta) of concerned Mandal of the Minor Irrigation Department ...
Smt. Ambi Bisht Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1706; (2001)3UPLBEC2003
Jagdish Bhalla, J.1. All these writ petitions involve the same questions of fact and law as same orders of termination of services of the petitioners have been challenged, therefore, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. By means of these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders of termination of their services dated 24.3.1998 and 27.3.1998 passed by the State Government with a further prayer to direct the opposite parties to consider the petitioners for regularization in service on their respective posts and to continue them with all benefits of service.3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 22,3.1995 the petitioners were initially appointed on ad hoc basis under Rule 31 of the U. P. Palika Centralized Service Rules. 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) on different posts, i.e., Executive Officers of Nagar Palika, Tax Superintendent. Nagar Nigam. Tax Superintendent. Nagar Palika category I, II a...
Kalawati Singh (Smt.) Vs. District Magistrate/Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)2UPLBEC1036
Palok Basu and R.K. Dash, JJ.1. The petitioner Smt. Kalawati Singh challenges the order of the District Magistrate, Balia dated 6.12.1999 whereby a sum of Rs. 2,13,999/- has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner on the supposed charge that the said amount has been wasted in constructing the building of the Panchayat Bhawan in village Gayghat, District Balia. Challenging the said recovery order Sri S.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has also urged that political considerations seem to have been reigned supreme when the action under challenge was initiated against the petitioner and that may have the reason that the District Magistrate was persuaded to pass an order which was and is against the wishes of the people and also against the subsequent resolution of the Gram Sabha.2. On entertaining the writ petition, respondents were called upon to file counter affidavit and by an interim order dated 13.1.2000, the operation of the order of the District Magistrate was ...
Surendra Nath Singh Alias Bharat Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1745
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Girdhar Nath, learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation.2. By this petition the applicant has sought for quashing of the order summoning him and 14 others on the basis of a charge-sheet submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as 'CBI') before the Special Court (CBI) at Lucknow.3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that CBI was authorised to investigate this case after the charge-sheets were submitted by the local police before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, and that Court having taken cognizance in the matter for the purposes of commitment of the case alone is entitled to proceed with the C.B.I, charge-sheet. CBI was entrusted with the investigation by the State of U.P. There were two cross versions. One of these versions is now pending before the Court at Varanasi. The contention, therefore, is that CBI is not authorised to su...
Kishan Pal and ors. Etc. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2875
M.A. Khan, J.1. The above noted two appeals arise out of the same judgment and order dated 20-4-2000 passed by Sri H.S. Yadav, Addl. Sessions Judge, Etah thereby convicting the appellants Kishan Pal, Ajant Singh and Mahavir of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and imposing death penalty to them and to pay a fine Rs. 1,000/- each. The appellant Shahzadey was also convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. All the four appellants were further held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 364 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. All the four appellants were further held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five years. All the four appellants were further held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 452 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo R.I. fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »