Patna Court March 2005 Judgments
Bishwanath Singh Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-03-2005
R.N. Prasad, J.1. The petitioner was an employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board. At the relevant time he was posted as Assistant Electrical Engineer. He retired from service on 30.9.1997. A proceeding was initiated and charge sheet dated 26.2.1997 was served on him. He filed written statement in defence and also participated in the proceeding. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report, Annexure-2. He did not find the petitioner guilty of any charge. The disciplinary authority on receipt of the enquiry report, differed from the enquiry report and recorded a finding that charge No. 4 is proved and also recorded the proposed punishment, Annexure-3. A second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner, filed his second show cause, Annexure-4. The disciplinary authority after filing of the second show cause passed order of punishment which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 3.3.1999, Annexure-5. Two punishments were awarded, one was deduction of 10...
Tag this Judgment!Sadhu Musahar and anr. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-03-2005
Ghanshyam Prasad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.6.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, West Champaran at Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 81 of 1991. Both appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant Sadhu Musahar has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year under Section 341, IPC and R.I. for one year under Section 323, IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 9.1.1990 at 7.00 p.m. the informant who is prosecutrix, Vidya Devi (PW 2) had gone to fetch water from well situated in the village, while she was returning after fetching water and reached near the house of accused appellants, appellant Sadhu Musahar all a sudden caught her from behind lifted her and brought her in his house. Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Mandal Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-03-2005
V.N. Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and Private respondents.2. The petitioner who is the Pramukh of Chandan Panchayat Samiti has filed this writ application assailing the requisition, signed by 10 elected Members of the Panchayat Samiti served on him under Letter No. 741, dated 24.11.2003 of the Block Development Officer, Chandan, Annexure-2 as also the Resolution of the Chandan Panchayat Samiti dated 18.12.2003, Annexure-4, passed on the basis of the said requisition removing him from the office of the Pramukh, Chandan Panchayat Samiti by a majority of 10 votes. The ground of challenge raised against the requisition served on the petitioner under Letter dated 24.11.2003. Annexure-2 is that the same was signed by only 10 elected Members of the Panchayat Samiti which is violative of Sub-section (3) of Section 44 of the Bihar Panchayati Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which requires at least 1/3rd of the total number of the Members ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-03-2005
Baria Ghosh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. In the writ petition the petitioner seeks two fold reliefs. In contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding the petitioner was put under suspension. He remained suspended during the period 1.11.1990 to 31.8.1992. In the disciplinary proceeding the petitioner was awarded punishments. While, however, awarding punishments to the petitioner the final order passed in the disciplinary proceeding did not deal with as to how the suspended period spent by the petitioner shall be treated. There is no dispute that during the period the petitioner remained under suspension he was paid subsistence allowance. Because of the order of suspension the petitioner was deprived of receiving his full salary during the period of suspension. The order of suspension stood merged with the final order passed in the disciplinary proceeding. While passing the final order in the disciplinary proceeding it was open to the disciplinary authority to direct as ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Satya Prakash and ors. Vs. the Patna University and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-02-2005
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Mr. Baidyanath Thakur for the petitioners, and Mr. Syed Iqbal Ahmad for the respondents. We have also been assisted by Dr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, Pro-Vice Chancellor of the Patna University.2. Four petitioners have joined this writ petition raising a seemingly joint cause of action which really is not correct and they have separate cause of action, which was overlooked by the Registry at the time of scrutiny. However, this defect in the frame of the writ petition has been detected during the course of submissions today and, therefore, it may not be in the interest of justice to confine this writ petition to one petitioner. However, the four petitioners have paid separate sets of court fee. Let it be brought to the notice of the learned Registrar General.3. It is stated in the petition that the four petitioners had joined the MBBS Course of the Patna University, the classes and examination of which are conducted by Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Mani Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-02-2005
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel for the Magadh University.2. The petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents-University to issue his B.Ed, certificate.3. It is submitted by learned Counsel that result of B. Ed. examination was published on 7-2-1999 where the petitioner was shown to have passed the examination in 1st Division and thereafter marksheet was issued to him but when he applied for B. Ed. certificate, the University authorities on one pretext or the other, delayed the matter and till date B. Ed. certificate has not been issued to the petitioner.4. Learned Counsel for the University with reference to counter -affidavit, however, submitted that entire records of the college have been seized by the vigilance department and the matter is still under scrutiny.5. This appears to be admitted position that the petitioner passed B. Ed. examination sometimes in the year 1999 by securing high marks. For laches o...
Tag this Judgment!Vinoy Kumar Gupta and ors. Vs. Ambika Mishra
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
S.N. Hussain, J.1. The petitioners are defendants in Title Suit No. 9 of 2004 (38 of 2001) which was filed by the sole opposite party for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction against the defendants and for other ancillary reliefs.2. The defendants-petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 15.12.2004, passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned Munsif (Execution), Gaya, had allowed the plaintiff's petition for amendment of his plaint.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently challenges the impugned order on the ground that the amendment petition had been filed after more than three years of the filing of the suit when the issues have already been framed and the suit has been posted for hearing and, hence, according to the amended provision of Order VI, Rule 17, of the Code of Civil Procedure, no amendment should have been allowed at this stage. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that after knowing the defence of the petitioners fr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›