Patna Court January 2002 Judgments
Girish Kumar Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-03-2002
I.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment dated 24th May, 1990 passed by Shri Ram Gopal Pandey, Special Judge, (C.B.I.) South Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 31 of 1997. The sole appellant who was a Senior Accountant in A.G. Office, Patna has been convicted under Sections 420,467,471,477 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under each count. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The brief facts of the case, as disclosed in the FIR are that the appellant while functioning as Selection Grade Accountant in the office of Accountant General, Bihar, Patna during the period January, 1987 to May, 1987 misused his official position and fraudulently and dishonestly preferred a claim towards Leave Travel Concession for Rs. 18,576/-. It has been further alleged that Girish Kumar withdrew an advance of Rs. 13,000/- from the office of the Accou...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhai Ram Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-02-2002
Aftab Alam, J.1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner has been denied appointment on compassionate grounds following the death of one Munakka Devi who at the time of her death was working as a sweeper in the Anugrah Narain Medical College, Gaya and who according to the petitioner was her adoptive mother. The petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate grounds was turned down on the ground that the scheme does not relate to an adopted son. Counsel for the petitioner is quite right in his submission that the reason assigned for rejecting the petitioner's claim was incorrect and untenable in law as a bench decision of this Court has held that the expression 'son' used in the scheme of compassionate appointment also included, in case of Hindus, an adopted son.3. Nevertheless a direction for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds as prayed on his behalf cannot be issued and this writ petition is bound to fail. This is for the reason that on the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Sheo Shakti Re-rolling Mills (P.) Limited Vs. State of Bihar and ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-02-2002
S.K. Katriar, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash letter No. 1763, dated 11-7-2001 (Annexure-19), issued under the signature of the Director of Industries Government of Bihar, enclosing thereto the resolution dated 20-6-2001 of the State-level Industrial Subsidy Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee'), considered at its meeting on 14-6-2001, informing the petitioner in substance that its claim to the balance of the industrial subsidy has been rejected.2. The meandering course of this seemingly interminable litigation is sickening. Claim of industrial subsidy of Rs. 7.5 lakh as per the policy of the State Government has brought the petitioner to this Court for the fifth time provided the present one is allowed to be the last one. My mind boggles down as to how to look at the matter before me The hair-spliting approach adopted with the purpose to harass the petitioner, and to defeat the policy of industrial subsidy, is writ large on the fa...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Yash Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jan-01-2002
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. 1. This is an appeal on behalf of the State of Bihar. At the out set the Court may indicate that regard being had to the aspect and the manner in which the pleadings were not exchanged the State of Bihar can hardly contend that the order of the learned Judge is incorrect. 2. If the engagement of the contesting respondents was not illegal the only issue which remains is of the regularisation of their services. Such large scale employment and consequential regularisation of service can only be under a scheme formulated by the State Government. The first five respondents evaded filing a reply to the petition. This is a matter on record and noticed by the learned Judge. The 6th respondent filed a counter-affidavit. This respondent was the Executive Engineer, Sitamarhi Division. He virtually admitted the case of the respondent-petitioners. For instance it was accepted that the engagement of the persons concerned, in context, was regular; that there was a continuous em...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›