Patna Court March 2003 Judgments
Lakshman Paswan Vs. the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. an ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-06-2003
Chandramauli, Kr. Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17-1-2001 (Annexure-7), and the consequential order dated 7-2-2001 (Annexure-8) whereby the petitioner has been visited with the penalty of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect and it has been further decided that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any other amount other than the subsistence allowance.2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Accountant in Saharsa Depot of the respondent Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'. While he was working as such, by order dated 29th of April, 1999, (Annexure-1), he was put under suspension in contemplation of a departmental inquiry. Lateron, the departmental inquiry was initiated against him and he was served with a memo of charge dated 30th of July, 1999...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Report of the District and Sessions Judge; in Re: Suo Motu Acti ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
S.N. Jha, J. 1. These proceedings arise out of an unfortunate incident which took place in and around the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram on 19-1-2002. 2. Briefly stated, notice was issued by the Sessions Judge, Rohtas to the Officer-in-Charge of Bikramganj Police Station, S.I. Arun Paswan, to show-cause in terms of Section 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code for non-production of the case diary despite adjournments in connection with hearing of Bail Petition No. 1671 /2001 arising out of Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 200/2001 under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On 19-1-2002, SI Arun Paswan appeared before the Sessions Judge and filed show-cause along with papers. The Sessions Judge found that the case diary had been written only up to 28-11-2001. After show-cause notice was issued three paragraphs were written but there was no investigation after 28-11-2001, even though it was a 'Special Report' case. The learned Judge found that from the St...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Kumar Jha and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.N. Mukhopadhya, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V.N. Sinha, learned Government Pleader No. 9 for the respondents and considered the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 2. This writ application is directed against the orders as contained in Annexure 1 series issued vide Memo Nos. 3227 and 3212 dated 18-11-2000, respectively, whereby and whereunder both the petitioners have been reverted to their substantive post with retrospective effect. 3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 was promoted to the post of Assistant Research Officer, pursuant to the decision of the State Government dated 9-9-1978, with effect from 31-10-1979 whereas petitioner No. 2 was promoted with effect from 6-9-1983 and they continued on their promotional post for more than 20 years and now they are being reverted back to their substantive post without any rhyme and reason arid that also with retrospective effect. Learn...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Singh Munda Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to Standing Counsel No. 7 for the respondents and considered the counter-affidavit2. The orders as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 are under challenge whereby and whereunder the disciplinary authority has started a fresh departmental proceeding against the petitioner even after conclusion of the earlier departmental proceeding culminating into exoneration of the petitioner.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was earlier proceeded against departmentally and the matter was enquired into and after submission of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority dropped the departmental proceeding against the petitioner by exonerating him and he was released from suspension vide order as contained in Annexure-5 dated 7-9-2000. Learned Counsel further submitted that the order as contained in Annexure-5 was passed by the disciplinary authority and, therefore, the earlier order passed by the disc...
Tag this Judgment!Ramawati Devi Vs. Maheshwar Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Nagendra Rai, J1. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 6-6-2001, passed by the Subordinate Judge IX, Siwan, in Misc. Case No. 4 of 1999, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, by which she has challenged the compromise entered between her and other opposite parties as unlawful.2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 filed a suit for partition against the defendant-opposite parties second set and the petitioner, who was defendant No. 3. Her mother was defendant No. 2, who died during the pendency of the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the parties agreed to compromise the matter and, accordingly, a compromise petition was prepared and the same was signed by all the parties. The properties in Schedule 5 were allotted to the defendant-petitioner. The said compromise petition was moved on 28-8-1998 and, thereafter, the Court examined witnesses, in support of the aforesaid compromise including the petitioner, who als...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sunder Prasad Sinha Vs. Bihar State of Pollution Control Board a ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. and R.N. Prasad, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 7th December, 1995 on CWJC No. 284 of 1985; Shyam Sunder Prasad Sinha v. Bihar State Pollution Control Board and Ors. 2. The issue plainly is on the aspect whether the petitioner-appellant Shyam Sundre Prasad Sinha has been wrongly denied his position as a Routine Clerk. According to the judgment which has been challenged his function as a Routine Clerk has been frustrated as the promotion of respondent No. 4 has been permitted over and above the petitioner-appellant. 3. It is on record that the petitioner-appellant was asked to look after the work of Routine Clerk from 13-11 -1980. 4. The short background is necessary. The petitioner is not the senior-most. The senior-most is respondent No. 4. The exclusion of respondent No. 4 and preferring the petitioner to look after the work of a Routine Clerk is itself an answer. The respondent No. 4 was not possessed of qualificatio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›