Patna Court August 2004 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.
Pranav Chaterjee Mahavidyalaya Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commiss ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J. 1 .This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 9.7.2003 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner whereby, in exercise of the power under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 he imposed penal damage of Rs. 3,75,434/- and the consequential steps taken for its recovery.2. In view of the order which I propose to pass in this writ application, it is inexpedient to give in detail the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the petitioner earlier came to this Court questioning the imposition of penal damage which was registered as CWJC No. 11249 of 1998, Pranav Chatterjee Mahavidyalaya v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. This Court, by order dated 6.9.2002 (Annexure-2), disposed off the writ application with the following observation :--'This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the observation that the respondent authorities may satisfy themselves on the basis of ...
Mumtaz Ahmed Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradip Modi, learned GP-I for the State-respondents.2. The Petitioner in this case has challenged the order of dismissal from service passed on 28.10.1992 as contained in Annexure 10 by reason whereof he was dismissed with effect from 1.12.1992, The petitioner also challenges the order of the appellate authority passed on 27.6.1993 as contained in Annexure 11 by reason whereof the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforementioned order dated 28.10.1992 was rejected.3. The facts, which are necessary to be taken note of in the instant case are that while he was in service having been employed as Constable in Ranchi, a departmental proceeding was initiated upon service of a charge-sheet (Annexure-1), whereby and whereunder the following charges were leveled against him :--(i) On 13.9.1990 the petitioner was supposed to have escorted a VIP from the Ranchi Railway Station, but he absented himsel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›