Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001CriLJ800; 2001(2)WLC632; 2000(3)WLN39
ORDERChauhan, J. (1). The cases, deal with here, have chequered history as there have been several rounds of litigation before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in different forms at different stages and also before this court in bail matters.(2). The instant criminal miscellaneous applications have been filed for quashing the complaint (C.R. No. 403/1996) registered at the Police Station, Kotwali, Pali, as also the further investigation pertaining to offences under Sections 120B, 195, 196, 342, 347, 357, 368, 388, 482 I.P.C. and Sections 17, 58(1)(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the 'N.D.P.S. Act').(3). The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that on 17.10.1996, one Mr. Sumer Singh Rajpurohit, a Practising Advocate filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, alleging that shop No. 6 in Vardhaman Market, Pali, owned by Smt. Amri Bai w/o Shri Jayant Raj had been taken...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1994)ILLJ1038Raj; 1993(1)WLC577
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Challenge in this writ petition has been made to an order dated April 8, 1983 (Annexure-4) passed by the Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Ajmer for termination of the service of petitioner on the basis of departmental inquiry held against him. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner who was serving as a conductor in the service of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') was suspended on July 9, 1982. A charge sheet dated July 9, 1982 was served upon him for a departmental inquiry. By an order dated August 20, 1982 of the Regional Manager, Ajmer, Regional Depot Manager was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Inquiry proceedings were fixed on September 21, 1982, October 7, 1982, October 20, 1982, November 6, 1982, November 19, 1982, December 10, 1982, December 23, 1982, January 17, 1983, February 4, 1983 and February 14, 1983. The petitioner attended the inquiry on February 14, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1994Raj213
1. As common issues have been raised in all the petitions mentioned-above, the same are being disposed off by a common judgment. 2. In all the aforesaid petitions the Board of Revenue has refused to entertain second appeal/revision of the petitioners on the ground that petitioners have not deposited 25% of the reserved price of land allotted to the petitioners as per the requirement of the relevant rule of the Rules under which the application for allotment of land of the petitioners were refused or allotment already made under the said rules in favour of the petitioners have been cancelled. 3. The relevant Rule 10A of the Rajathan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees in Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules 1972 (in short hereinafter called as the 'Pong Dam Rules') and Rule 23 A of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules 1975 (in short hereinafter called as the 'Rules of 1975), which was inserted in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1958Raj38
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is an application by Dwarkachand under Article 226 of the Constitution against the State of Rajasthan and its officers for a writ in the nature of prohibition,2. The facts of the case are simple and are not in dispute. The applicant was a clerk working in Tehsil Sanchore in 1954. A report was made by the Tahsildar Sanchore on 30th of August 1954 that he was alleged to have accepted illegal gratification from Kaluram Khatri of Sanchore. In that connection, the applicant had been arrested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Anti-Corruption Branch) though later he was released on bail.On receipt of this report, the applicant was suspended by the Collector, Jalor on the 31st of August 1954. It appears that thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Anti-Corruption Branch) asked for sanction of the Collector to prosecute the applicant. The Collector held a departmental enquiry immediately after the report of the Tehsildar reached him. This was in accordance wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1630
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. The petitioner in this case has challenged the order of suspension dated 23.5.03 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan. It has been prayed that the impugned order of suspension be quashed and set-aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in the month of March 2003 there were certain complaints against the non qualified medical practitioners in District of Kota, alleging that some of them are not having the requisite degrees and there are others who are having fictitious certificates. Some others are having licenses which had not been renewed. In this regard, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural) had also made complaint to the petitioner, vide letter dated 11/03/2003. The petitioner was reported that the Registered Medical Practitioners had not been getting their license renewed since long and there had been complaint against...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1979WLN737
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. Shri Ugam Raj Bhandari, the appellant in this Special Appeal was a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. In January 1969, he was posted as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. While working as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, the appellant was trying Civil Suit No. 108/l961-4/1968 Mansukhlal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. By letter dated September 1, 1969, the Registrar of the High Court informed the appellant that it was proposed to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the C.C.A. Rules) and in that connection copies of the memorandum and the statements of allegations and charge sheet dated September 1, 1969 consisting of two charges, drawn by Shri Justice Jagat Narayan, who was the Administrative Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at that he was also sent to the appellant. In reply to the aforesaid communicati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj2047; 2005(2)WLC392
R.P. Vyas, J.1. By the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 13.3.90 (Annexure 7), passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, as well as the notice dated 9.4.85 (Annexure 4), issued by the Collector, Chittorgarh be declared invalid and be quashed, with all consequential benefits.2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are that Shri Bal Kishan Garg-petitioner was appointed as Patwari vide order dated 25.12.1954. For the first time, vide order dated 10.10.75, the petitioner was given compulsory retirement under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, 'the Rules, 1951'). Thereafter, the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement was revoked by a subsequent order dated 4.5.77 and the petitioner was taken back in service.3. For the second time, the petitioner was given compulsory retirement vide order dated 7.4.81, which was challenged by way of appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(2)WLC544; 2002(2)WLN663
Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.9.1996 (Annx.6), by which petitioner, an Officer of the Rajasthan Administrative Service cadre, has been put under suspension, being involved in a criminal case.2.. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner remained posted as the Sub-Divisional Officer cum Land Conversion Officer, Jodhpur from 12.9.91 to 31.3.1992. It transpired that during that period, seventy-eight files of his office were found missing and forty-eight files therefrom were recovered. In all those cases, orders of conversion of land from agriculture to residential had been passed on 23.11.89 by some another officer, i.e. predecessor-in-office of the petitioner. In some cases Pattas had been issued on 20.3.92 & 30.3.92, i.e. during the period when petitioner was posted there. These Pattas purported to have been signed by the petitioner. In this respect, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated agains...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(2)WLN203
1. This petition arises under extraordinary circumstances and is based on allegations of deep intricacies suspected rivalries, intolerance of disloyalty on jejure affairs, at the highest elter of judicial functionaries in the State. It contains allegations as to how the Registrar of High Court appointed by one Chief Justice becomes an eye sore of other judges with whom he does not toe in line or does not fulfil their wishes.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was a practising lawyer at Jodhpur when he was offered an appointment to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and he joined on November 21, 1977 as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Udaipur. He was confirmed in the month of November, 1979 after the completion of probation period. He was appointed as Registrar of Rajasthan High Court in the month of November, 1983 by the then Chief Justice Shri P.K. Benerjee. Shri P.K. Banerjee retired on September 30, 1985 and the petitioner remained posted as Registrar until October 10,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN713
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. The petitioner has challenged by means of this writ petition the order passed by the Principal, Government College, Banner dated June 30, 1972 dismissing the petitioner from Government service.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially employed as a class IV employee in the office of the Collector, Barmer on November 4, 1966. The service of the petitioner was subsequently transferred on his own request to the Government College, Barmer, by the order of the Collector, Barmer dated March 7, 1976. Later on, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of class IV employee by order dated May 5, 1568 with effect from March, 1, 1965. While the petitioner was working as class IV employee at the Government College, Banner, a complaint was received against him to the effect that he suppressing the information that be was apprehended at Luni Railway Junction for carrying opium on March 11, 1960 and in that case he was convicted by the Court of the Railwa...
Tag this Judgment!