Himachal Pradesh Court April 2009 Judgments

Dr. Atma Ram Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Sanjay Karol, J.1. The petitioner/ the delinquent official, has assailed the order dated 3.12.1996 (Annexure A-1) imposing a penalty of stopping one annual increment for one year i.e. without cumulative effect, upon him while serving as Headmaster, Govt. High School, Jamble, Distt. Kangra; Order of rejection of representation/appeal dated 7.1.1997 (Annexure A1/ 1) and order dated 1.4.1997 treating the petitioner's period of suspension as 'Dies Non'. 2. The petitioner was posted as Headmaster in Govt. High School, Jamble, Distt. Kangra. The said school was upgraded, hence the Panchayat and the local people, decided to celebrate the occasion by organizing the village feast (jug) in the school premises after school hours. The local M.L.A. was to inaugurate the school and participate in the said function. 3. The Panchayat passed Resolutions dated 13.6.1996 (Annexure A-2), dated 15.6.1996 (Annexure A-4) in this regard. 4. In terms of letter dated 14.6.1996 (Annexure A-3) petitioner, as Head...

Shri Nand Lal Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC269

Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 8.9.1995. The Assistant Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He submitted report to the Disciplinary Authority on 9.9.1996. The petitioner was absolved by the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the report of the Inquiry Officer and appointed new Inquiry Officer on 31.10.1996. He submitted report to the Disciplinary Authority. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.8.1997. He filed reply to the same on 10.9.1997. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 23.6.1998 imposed the penalty of with-holding of three increments with cumulative effect. He preferred an appeal/representation to the Divisional Commissioner on 27.7.1998. He allowed the same on 21.2.2000. The matter was remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority again passed order dated 24.4.2000 whereby penalty of with-holdi...

New India Assurance Company Vs. Budh Ram and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC139

Dev Darshan Sud, J.1. The grievance made by the Insurance Company, appellant herein is that the Commissioner has erred in imposing penalty and interest on the Insurance Company. On the first aspect, the order of the Commissioner is absolutely clear when it says that the amount of penalty is to be recovered only from the employer. The law on this point is well settled in the decision of the Supreme Court in L.R. Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Mahavir Mahto and Anr. (2002) 9 SCC 450.2. On the second aspect, learned Counsel submits that the Commissioner was wrong in awarding interest from the date of the accident and not from the date of judgment as the amount would become due only from the date of the award. This Court in FAO (WCA) No. 270 of 2002, Sita Ram v. Satvinder Singh and Anr. decided on 30.5.2008, held:The Constitution Bench had already decided the question as to when compensation falls due in terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Unfortunately, this decision of the Constitution ...

Shishan Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC70

Surinder Singh, J.1. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Hamirpur, which has been challenged in this appeal.2. During the course of arguments, it came to the light that while examining the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in short 'the Code', the learned trial Court did not put a material circumstance i.e. the Forensic Science report Ex.PW11/B to the accused whereby it is reported that the Salwar (Ex. P1) of the prosecutrix contained the semen stains. Further it also transpired that after recording the statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 12.2.2007, the learned trial Court also did not resort to the provisions of Section 233(1) of the Code but it straight-away recorded the statement of the accused that he did not want to adduce defence evidence. Later the arguments were heard and the case decided.3. The ...

Kuldeep Singh Vs. H.R.T.C. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC140

Deepak Gupta, J.1. The petitioner is working as driver with the Himachal Road Transport Corporation. He is aggrieved by the order Annexure P-1, issued on 11.12.2008, whereby it has been ordered that he shall retire on attaining of superannuation i.e. 58 years on 30th April, 2009.2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a 'workman' within the meaning of Fundamental Rule 56(b). It is further contended that the petitioner is an employee of Himachal Road Transport Corporation which is an Industrial Establishment and therefore, in terms of Fundamental Rule 56(b), he can be superannuated only on attaining the age of sixty years. We had vide our order dated 22nd April, 2009 directed the H.R.T.C. to file supplementary affidavit clearly stating therein as to whether Fundamental Rules are applicable to the H.R.T.C. Supplementary Affidavit has been filed. Relevant portion of the affidavit is reproduced below:That in this regard, it is submitted that the Fundamental Rules are applicable t...

Opinder Mohan Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC154

Sanjay Karol, J.1. The petition filed before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 4.4.1996, was admitted on 11.4.1996. The same stood transferred to this Court in view of the provisions of The Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of decided and pending cases and applications) Act, 2008 (No. 14 of 2008).2. Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:(i) to quash and set aside the orders A-l to A-3 with all consequential benefits of service, pay, seniority etc.(ii) records of the case may very kindly be summoned for.Annexure A-l is the office order dated 2.2.1993 putting the petitioner under suspension w.e.f. 8.9.1992. Annexure A-2 is the show-cause notice dated 5.2.1993 issued by the District Primary Education Officer, Una to the petitioner proposing to impose major penalty of dismissal from service. Annexure A-3 is the order dated 24.2.1993 issued by the District Primary Education Officer, Una, dismissing the petitioner from service w.e.f. 24.2.199...

Shri Dhan Bahadur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC203

Surinder Singh, J.1. The appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short 'the Act' for allegedly possessing 1.700 Kgs. of charas which contained 37.09% of resin, which is a constituent of charas and that comes to 640 gms. in the recovered quantity. Thus, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of making payment of fine, the appellant was further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months, which has been challenged in this appeal. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that on 29.10.2006 PW-6, Sub Inspector, Ram Karan was on patrolling duty alongwith other police officials in Banjar area. At about 2.30 p.m. when the police party reached one K.M. from Sidhwan, they noted t...

Shiv Dass Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.6.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi in Sessions Trial Nos. 14-2004, 77-2005, whereby the accused has been found guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 18 & 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act). The accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years and to pay fine of Rs. 80,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one year under Section 18 of the Act. The accused has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for two years under Section 20 of the Act. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 29.3.2004, PW-10 Asish Sharma who was at th...

Urmila Devi Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(2)ShimLC148

Deepak Gupta, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Una exercising powers of the Appellate Authority under The H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 and set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Una exercising powers of the Authorized Officer under the Act. By means of the impugned order, the Appellate Authority has allowed the election petition and set aside the election of the petitioner as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Batt Kalan, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, H.P.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Batt Kalan, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, H.P. in the election held on 22nd December, 2005. Her election to this post was challenged by respondent No. 2 before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Una exercising powers of the Authorized Officer under Section ...

H.P.S.E.B. and anr. Vs. Nirmala Devi and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, J.1. The appellants are in appeal against judgment, decree dated 8.11.2002, passed by learned District Judge, Una in Civil Suit No. 6 of 2000, decreeing the suit of respondents No. 1 to 5 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till 8.11.2002 and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of payment with costs. The respondent No. 1 was held entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- and respondents No. 2 to 5, Rs. 25,000/- each alongwith proportionate interest. The respondent No. 1 shall deposit Rs. 50,000/- in some nationalized Bank for a period of 5 years and the share of minor respondent No. 4 Daya Nand shall remain deposit in some nationalized Bank till his minority. The liability of respondent No. 6 was held limited to Rs. 2,00,000/-2. The brief facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 to 5 being the widow, daughter, sons and mother of deceased Ram Sarup had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,98,00...