Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC600; 1955(0)BLJR550; (1956)ILLJ1SC; [1955]2SCR391
Imam, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Allahabad High Court affirming the decision of the Civil Judge of Allahabad. 2. The appellant was appointed to the United Provinces Civil (Executive) Service in 1940 and in due course was confirmed. He was posted to various stations and in 1944 he was posted to Lakhimpur Kheri, where he joined in July 1944. On 23rd August, 1944, the Deputy Commissioner of Lakhimpur Kheri received a telegram from Government informing him that the appellant was suspended forthwith pending inquiry into his conduct and that a copy of the telegram was forwarded to the appellant for information. On 26th August 1944, the Deputy Commissioner wrote to the appellant that he was required to appear before the Commissioner of the Lucknow Division on 28th August, 1944, to answer the charges, a copy of which would be forwarded to him. He further informed the appellant that he could treat his case under rule 55 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2432; 1978CriLJ187; (1977)1SCC57; [1977]1SCR125
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave exhibits the careless and cavalior manner in which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate appears to have dealt with the complaint filed before him as far back as 21st February, 1966. The complaint itself contains allegations of a very petty nature, of which hardly any cognizance could have been taken and which would be a trivial act under Section 95 of Indian Penal Code for which no criminal proceedings could be taken. There were proceedings under Section 107 between the parties and both parties applied for copies of these proceedings on the 20th December, 1965. It is alleged in the complaint that the appellant got the copy which was meant for the complainant, by signing his name. The complainant also sot his copy a few days after eventually. Such a small matter could have been resolved by the Magistrate himself if he had perused the complaint carefully and was certainly not a matter for which a detailed inquiry under Section 202, CrPC, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1423; JT1990(3)SC379; (1990)IILLJ388SC; 1990(1)SCALE625; (1990)3SCC60; [1990]2SCR233; 1990(2)LC217(SC); (1990)3UPLBEC2069
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. The respondent in this appeal-K. Ratnagiri was at the material time Circle Inspector of Police attached to Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. In that police station one U. Narasimha died in Police lock up. Pending prosecution with regard to that offence, the Director General of Police made an order keeping the respondent under suspension. The order reads:Shri K. Ratnagiri, Circle Inspector of Police, Sanjiva Reddy Nagar P.S. Hyderabad is placed under suspension with immediate effect in public interest untill further orders pending prosecution against him in the case of death of U. Narasimha in Police lock-up.3. The respondent appealed to the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has set a7side the suspension order holding that the respondent shall be deemed to be in service from the date of issue of suspension order. The Tribunal, however, has reserved liberty to the Government to transfer him to any other Police Station. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1116; [1984(48)FLR424]; (1984)IILLJ13SC; 1984(1)SCALE515; (1984)3SCC295; [1984]3SCR244; 1984(16)LC544(SC)
A. Varadarajan, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 19.8.1974 dismissing in limine Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 4827 of 1974 which had been filed by the appellant for quashing the first respondent's order dated 3.5.1974 removing him from service pursuant to the finding of the second respondent, U.P. Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow dated 10.7.1972 that the appellant was guilty of three of the four charges framed against him. The appellant was employed as a Deputy Superintendent of Police at Pilibhit at the -relevant time. The fourth charge of which the appellant has been exonerated was that he had transferred his Vespa Scooter bearing Registration No. UPI-9117 and valued at more than Rs. 500/- to one Lal Mohd. without obtaining the previous sanction of the appropriate authority and he thereby contravened Rule 24(2) of the U.P. Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1956. The appellant's defence was that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC773; 1961CriLJ794; [1961]2SCR672
Subba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, allowing the petition filed by the respondent under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. The facts are in a small compass and may be briefly stated. In the year 1933 the respondent was appointed a constable in U.P. Police Force; on December 1, 1945, he was promoted to the rank of head constable and in May, 1952 he was posted as officer incharge of Police Station, Intiathok, District Gonda. Complaints were received by the District Magistrate, Gonda, to the effect that the respondent was receiving bribes in the discharge of his duties. On September 16, 1952, the District Magistrate, Gonda, directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to make an enquiry in respect of the said complaints. On November 3, 1952, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after making the necessary enquiries, submitted a report to the District Magistrate recommending the transfer of the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC363; [1978(36)FLR479]; 1978LabIC312; (1978)ILLJ316SC; (1978)1SCC202; [1978]2SCR513; 1978(10)LC112(SC)
Beg, C.J.1. The Special Leave Petition before us arises out of a suit in which a point arose which had been referred for decision by a learned Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to a larger Bench on the ground that it involved an important question of law of some difficulty. This Court issued notices to the State of Haryana and other parties and we have heard counsel for both sides. Although the case does not deserve grant of special leave, we propose to dismiss the petition with a statement of the position which may clarify what seems to have troubled the Judges of the High Court.2. The petitioner before us had joined the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) as a probationer on 8th December, 1966. He was served with a show cause notice on 22nd October, 1968, asking him to explain certain allegations. He was served with another show cause notice on 18th June, 1969, asking him to explain probably the same, or at any rate, similar allegations again. He replied to the first ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2225; 2002(3)ALLMR(SC)579; 2002(3)AWC2509(SC); 2002CriLJ2942; [2002(2)JCR167(SC)]; JT2002(Suppl1)SC286; 2002(4)SCALE455; (2002)5SCC521; 2002(2)SCT1090(SC); (2002)2
1. Leave granted.2. These two appeals arise out of an order made by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 16.3.2001 in Civil Misc. W.P. Nos. 24759 and 28512 of 1999. The original writ petitioner had filed a number of writ petitions challenging the various actions taken by the Department against him. In the said writ petitions he had made very serious allegations against Sri Markandey Chand who was then the Minister for Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services in the Government of U.P. It is seen from the record that the said Minister had filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations leveled against him. In the said writ petitions, originally the High Court had passed certain interim orders staying the action initiated by the Department against which the Department had filed SLPs before this Court which challenge was allowed and this Court as per its order dated 3.4.2000 while directing the parties to maintain status quo as on the date of the said order, requested t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1970(20)FLR339]; (1970)IILLJ54SC; (1970)3SCC677
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court. The facts may be stated. The respondent was appointed as a cash clerk in the appellant's branch at Birhana Road ,Kanpur, on April 1, 1949.In July 1955 he was working in the cash department as a ' Receipter and Receiving Clerk'. On July 2, 1955 it was detected that there was a shortage of Rs. 1,000/- in the cash. According to the respondent this shortage in the cash of one B. N. Shukla who was the Assistant Cashier, However B. N. Shukla created a suspicion against the respondent. The Inquiry Officer. was the Agent of the Bank at its Lucknow branch. He found that the respondent was guilty of the charges which had been preferred against him in respect of the disappearance of Rs. 1,000/-. On October 1, 1956, the service of the respondent were terminated. He instituted a suit in September 1957 alleging that the inquiry held against him was illegal lot various reasons. He claimed a declaration t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3666; [2000(86)FLR1004]; JT2000(9)SC49; 2000(5)SCALE501; (2000)6SCC562; 2000(2)LC1488(SC)
ORDERShivaraj V. Patil, J.1. Leave sought for is granted.2. The Life Insurance Corporation of India and its officers have brought this appeal to this Court aggrieved by the judgment dated 8-10-1999, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta. The relevant facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are the following:3. While the respondent was working as a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Calcutta (for short the 'Corporation'), a charge-sheet was issued to him on 15-2-1968 alleging that he remained unauthorisedly absent from his duties for a total number of 61 days between the period 18-10-1967 to 13-2-1968 and that he remained absent from his station at Calcutta during the said period without prior permission of the authorities. He was directed to submit his written statement to the said charges. Accordingly, he submitted his reply in writing. Thereafter, the Divisional Manager, Calcutta of the Corporation was appointed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1547; (1971)ILLJ315SC; (1971)1SCC411; [1971]3SCR461
ORDERWhereas, you Shri Sardari Lal, Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police No. 331/D, Police Station Kamla Market, Delhi hold your office during the pleasure of the President, andWhereas the President is satisfied that you are unfit to be retained in the public service and ought to be dismissed from service, andWhereas the President is further satisfied Under Sub-clause (c) of proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold an inquiry,Now, therefore, the President is pleased to dismiss you from service with immediate effect. By order and in the name of the President of India Sd/-(B. Venkataraman) Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs.3. It was common ground before the High Court and has not been disputed before us that the President had no occasion to deal with the case or the appellant himself and the order was made by Shri Venkataraman, Joint Secretary to the Government of...
Tag this Judgment!