Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1969Cal198,72CWN328
ORDERB.C. Mitra, J. 1. This is an application for a rule nisi in a petition for a writ of quo warranto. The petition was moved on January 12, 1968, when an order was made directing the petitioner to serve notice of this application on the respondents. Pursuant to this order notice has been served upon the respondents who have appeared in this application, but some of them opposed the issue of a rulenisi, while others supported the petitioner.2. Briefly stated the events that have led to this application are as follows:--After the last Genera! Election several political parties, whose members are members of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council of West Bengal, formed a coalition under the name and style of 'United Front'. The members of the United Front in the Legislative Assembly, enjoyed the support of the majority, and the Governor appointed the respondent No. 12, who was the leader of the United Front, as the Chief Minister of the State, and on the recommendation of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2727
ORDERArunabha Basu, J.1. Scope and object of the amended provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code), is the subject-matter of present discussion, which arises out of revisional application filed under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code, whereby and whereunder the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, in connection with Criminal revision No. 146 of 2006 is sought to be assailed by the petitioners herein.2. Petitioners herein instituted complaint case registered as Complaint Case No. 6333 of 2006 under Sections 406/409/465/467/471/477A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against eight persons including the company.3. Fact of the case on which the aforementioned complaint case was initiated is not relevant for the purpose of present discussion, save and except, that some of the accused persons as mentioned in the petition of complaint, are residents which falls outside for jurisdict...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1962Cal311
1. The plaintiffs are the widow and minor children of one Sanat Kumar Dutta-Gupta who was killed in an air crash. They have instituted this suit under the Fatal Accidents Act for the recovery of damages against the defendant Corporation. It is pleaded in the plaint that the deceased Sanat Kumar purchased a ticket as a passenger from Dum Dum Airport to Jorhat on the defendant's scheduled route known as the Calcutta-Mohonbari route. On March 21, 1956 at about eleven o'clock in the morning the aircraft crashed while landing at Salami Airport. Sanat Kumar was killed in the crash. The plaintiffs' case is that the death of Sanat Kumar was caused by the negligence of the defendant Corporation or its employees. The particular of negligence are set out in paragraph 5 of the plaint. Leave to furnish further particulars of negligence and/or misconduct however was reserved after discovery. Such further particulars were furnished at the time of the opening of the case by Mr. Dutt Roy the learned co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal166
Richard Garth, C.J.1. Whatever doubts may have arisen upon the subject of this reference in consequence of recent legislation, it is at least satisfactory that we are all now agreed upon one very material point, namely, that at the time of the passing of the Indian Carriers Act in 1865, the English law relating to common carriers was in force in this country. My brother WILSON and myself, when we referred this case, had some doubt about that point, but, so far as I am concerned, I am glad to say that my doubts have been entirely removed.2. It is obvious that the Carriers Act itself assumes two things: first, that there were a class of persons here at that time, who were recognized as common carriers; and, secondly, that there was some special law, which regulated the duties and responsibilities of those persons. It is difficult to imagine what that law could have been, unless it were the English common law; and it seems only reasonable to suppose that, as common carriers were introduce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)2CALLT133(HC),[2004(102)FLR886],(2004)IIILLJ1025Cal
M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before us being aggrieved by the order of learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition being W.P. No. 3516(W) of 2001 by order dated June 26, 2001.2. Having heard Mr. Sadhan Roy Chowdhury assisted by Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner and Mr. Kamal Kr. Chatterjee on behalf of the respondent in the appeal, we are of the view that the only question arising for consideration in the instant appeal is as to whether after issuing the charge sheet under Regulation 58 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971 for imposition of major penalty, for which the rule envisages holding of a regular departmental enquiry, the authority can, after examining the reply to the charge sheet inflict a minor punishment without holding a regular departmental enquiry.3. Learned single Judge in the judgment under appeal relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Food Corpora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)(2)SLJ30CAT
1. The applicant, Shri Narayan Ch. Das has filed this OA challenging the charge sheet dated 29.1.90 (Annexure A/1), the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 28/31.10.02 (Annexure A/12) and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 15.7.03 (Annexure A/15).2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant was a Rest-Giver Assistant Station Master to the regular Station Master Shri L.N. Majhi at Quarry-Siding Railway Station. Shri S.R. Das was another such Rest-Giver Station Master. The applicant has alleged that T-39 Register indicated receipt of two Box Wagons of Steel Plates by Shri Majhi in February and March, 1987. These were for ultimate delivery to M/s Bhagawati Iron & Steel Hardware Depot a Bhubaneswar. Their Agent Sambhu Kedia took delivery of major part of the Steel Plates by gas cutting in presence of Shri Majhi as witnessed by Shri Kalipada Dey a prosecution witness. Supplier did not get cost of the materials and reported the matter to CBI, Rourkela. Their Insp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1966Cal252,(1967)ILLJ317Cal
Bose, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an Order of Banerjee J. making a Rule under Article 226 of the Constitution absolute and quashing the order of termination of service of the respondent. 2. The respondent is a civilian employee of the Ministry of Defence and was first employ ed about twenty-two years back in the Ordinance Section as a permanent labourer in Metal & Steel Factory, Ichapur It is alleged that on or about the 24th February 1960 while working in the course of his employment he received injury on his chest, two hands and shoulders as a result of an accident by fall of a scrap iron and he was immediately shifted to the Military Hospital at Alipur but he was discharged from the said hospital on the 6th March 1960 There after he reported for duty but was not allow ed to resume his duties and was kept under observation of the local hospital of the Metal & Steel Factory for three weeks. Upon the expiry of three weeks he again reported for duty but was not allowed to resume his d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1954Cal335
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 326 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ for quashingof certain departmental proceeding taken against the petitioner and the report dated 25-10-1951 andfindings made therein and also for quashing of a notice to show cause dated 10-4-1952 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action of the nature mentioned therein should not be taken against him.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a Bachelor of Science of the Calcutta University and had special training in metallurgy and fuel technology and in agricultural engineering. He was appointed as Preventive Officer in the Customs Department of the Government of India in 1941. In 1944 he was entrusted with the work of an Examining Officer. In 1946 he appeared at a departmental examination and stood first in order of merit. In March 1946 he was posted as Postal Export Appraiser. In 1949 he passed the Appraiser's departmental examination and continued to act s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1964Cal503,68CWN215,(1964)ILLJ462Cal
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J.1. At all times material for the purposes of this Rule, the petitioner was employed as the Curator of the Indian Botanical Gardens at Sibpore, District Howrah. On July 21, 1958, thepetitioner was suspended from service, because there was an enquiry for alleged misconduct started against him by the Anti-Corruption Department of Police. Apparently acting on the report submitted by the Police, C. K. Ray (respondent. No. 3), the then Secretary, Forest Department, by a notice, dated October 17, 1958, charged the petitioner with several misconducts as hereinbelow stated :'Charge I: Illegally and dishonestly accepted- (a) A sum of Rs. 400/- in 1948 from one Monomohan Roy, son of Mohini Mohan Roy of 23A, Peari Mohan Roy Road, Chetla, on the pretest of helping him to get a telephone installed in his house by influencing the Contract Officer Telephones; (b) A sum of Rs. 1,000/- from one Anadi Bhusan Singh, son of Surendra Nath Singh of Prince Anwar Shah Road, Tollygunge, on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007(3)CHN505
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the employer, the Union of India, and is directed against order dated 8th June, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No. 836 of 2001 thereby setting aside the order of the appellate authority affirming the order of removal from service of the respondent before us and remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority for appointing an appropriate authority to enquire into the charge against the private respondent in terms of Rule 14(2) of the Service Rules.2. The only ground on which the Tribunal has set aside the order of removal and that of the appellate authority affirming the same is that the enquiry was done by a retired Government servant and according to the Tribunal, it should be done by a sitting Government servant.3. In arriving at such conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case ...
Tag this Judgment!