Court : Guwahati
P.P. Naolekar, C.J. 1. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the issues involved in this case are, that the petitioner was temporary appointed as officiating LDC in the scale of pay of Rs. 260-400 p.m. vide order dated 15.4.1978. The petitioner was absorbed in regular vacancy of LDC with effect from 5.5.1978 and thereafter, he was confirmed against a permanent post of LDC with effect from 1.5.1982 vide order dated 11.3.1983. The petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of the departmental enquiry vide order dated 18.2.1986. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 14.5.1986 wherein the petitioner was charged for absenting himself from duty without taking prior permission and that he had failed to maintain the account in respect of sale proceed properly and had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3,84,862 being supply of sale proceed Biate Group Centre, and lastly, while functioning as LDC he had spent Rs. 7000 being supply of sale proceed of Biate Group Centre ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.G. Agarwal, J.1. This common Order disposes of Cri. Revision Nos. 545/1996, 205/ 1998 and Cri. Revn. No. 192/1998 as all these revisions are directed against the order passed in Case No. 206C/85 of the Court of C. J. M., Kamrup, and presently pending as Special Case No. 5C/93 of the Court of Special Judge, Kamrup and the order dated 20.4.1996 has been challenged in the two revision petitions. As a matter of fact, the revision petitioners before us have prayed for quashing of the trial in the above cases.2. The facts, Case No. RC/3/80/CIU(C) dated 10th November, 1980 was registered by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. In the FIR it was alleged that during the year 1978-79 the accused persons had entered into a conspiracy for cheating the State Government including the Steel Authority of India Ltd., and for obtaining certain pecuniary benefits to the tune of Rs. 1,53,000. In the year 1985 charge sheet was submitted against 26-accused persons under Section 120B/420/467/477A, IPC ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. This case strengthens the common belief that by collusion or otherwise, howsoever hard one tries to suppress, manipulate or mutilate the truth, yet truth has its strange ways of surfacing. If the truth surfaces, it will be unjust and improper to ignore the truth and be lenient to the person, who has tried hard to suppress the truth.2. The petitioner, who is an inspector of police in Arunachal Pradesh Police Force, has approached this Court, with the help of the present application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of appropriate writ(s) setting aside and quashing the impugned order, dated 6.10.1997 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 3, namely, the Inspector General of Police, PHQ, Arunachal Pradesh, whereby penalty of reduction of three stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner following a departmental proceeding drawn against him and the order dated 14...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. This writ petition should serve as a reminder to the Government servants/Government employees that they are servants/employees of the Government and not of any superior officer or of any other person, however, high or mighty such a person may be, and that when a Government servant acts against the instructions/directions/orders of the Government in order to comply with the instructions/directions/ orders of his superior officer or of any other person, the law may not protect such an Act.2. In this writ application, the petitioner, an Assistant Conservator of Forest, in the Department of Forests, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, was, at the relevant time, holding the charge of the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Khollong Forest Division, Balukpong. While the petitioner was so serving as DFO, In-Charge of the Division, during the year 1995-96, he allegedly issued permits for felling/removing of trees from the said Division for in excess of the quota fixed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By the impugned judgment and order, dated 9.8.2002, passed in WP(C) No. 62/2000, the writ petition has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner has, now, preferred the present appeal.2. Can the terms and conditions of the service of a Government servant, unlike that of an employee in a private sector, be altered unilaterally by the statutory or constitutional authority concerned? If so, whether such alteration can be made with retrospective effect and if so, what is the extent of such powers Will the power to amend the conditions of service rertospectively include the power to take away or abridge, with retrospective effect, those rights, which have already accrued to the Government employee under the existing rules and before the amendment was introduced Whether the writ of mandamus, issued in a given case, can be superseded by the Government and if so, how and what extent What was the real question, which the WP(C) No. 62/2000, had raised for determin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
A.H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. H. Rahman, learned Senior C.G.S.C. appearing on behalf of the Union of India - respondents.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 15.3.2000 passed by the learned Members, Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, (for short 'the Tribunal') in OA No. 66/98 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner raising a grievance against the order of compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner, by way of penalty vide order dated 21.9.1995 rendered by the appellate authority on appeal preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 31.1.1995 issued by the disciplinary authority removing him from service on the basis of initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules,) 1965, (for short 'the Rules').3. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Our constitutional scheme for governance is based on the rule of law. Absence of arbitrary power, as the Apex Court observed in S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India and Ors. : [1967]65ITR34(SC) , is the first essential of the rule of law. In a system governed by the rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits. 'Law has reached its finest moments,' observed Douglas, J, in United States v. Wunderlich, (1951) 342 US 98, 'when it as free man from the unlimited discretion of some ruler ... where discretion is absolute, man has always suffered.' If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law. [See S.G. Jaisinghani (supra).2. Article 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of employment or appointment to any office under t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T. NK. Singh, J.1. Heard Mr. Y. Z. Shimray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned CGSC for respondent N1, 2 and 3 as well as Mr. Jalal, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondent.2. By This writ petition, the petitioner is seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the kiths & kin of the deceased Mr. Padikhonang (brother of the writ petitioner) in addition to the normal civil remedies.3. Short fact, which will suffice for deciding the present writ petition is that, at the intervening night of 29th and 30th January, 1997 at about t a.m. a column of army personnel belonging to 12 SIKHLI, posted at Nungba Post came to Nurathel Village and cordoned the houses of the villagers and villagers were forced to assemble and remain in the village by exposing to the cold wind, till 2 a.m. Thereafter, the army personnel conducted house search of all the villagers and looted cash and other valuable properties. The said army personnel also picked ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. The order under challenge in the present revision was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari, on 07.10.1994, directing issuance of summons to, amongst others, the accused petitioner under Sections 343/330/34 IPC.2. The material facts and chronology of events, which led to making of the present revision, may, in brief, be set out as follows:(i) The opposite party herein, viz., Golok Chandra Kalita lodged a complaint, on 06.09.1994, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, which have rise to Complaint Case No. 1385c of 1994, the case of the complainant being, in brief, thus: On 15.07.1994 at about 12 noon, accused No. 1, (i.e., the petitioner herein), who is an inspector of Police and was, at relevant point of time, Officer-in-Charge of Nalbari Police Station, accompanied by accused No. 2, Viz., Sudhangsu Sukla Baidhya, an inspector of Police at the said Police Station, and other staff, came to the business premises of the complainant a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. The Supreme Court and the High Courts being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also obligation to grant relief in exercise of their jurisdictions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India to the victims or heirs of the victims whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the state to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizens, notwithstanding the right of the citizens to the remedy by way of civil suit or criminal proceedings. Basing on these principles of law, petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for monetary compensation for unjustified killing of her son, late R.K. Laksana @ Vito Singh by the personnel of the Manipur Police Commando Unit under the private respondent No. 6 (i.e. Shri Pebam John Singh, S. I.) while he (R. K. Laksana @ Vito S...
Tag this Judgment!