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
Oral: 1. Heard Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel for Pollution Control Board, Assam. 2. By filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Syed Mahmud Ali, has challenged the office order dated 22.07.2013 imposing penalty of withholding 2 (two) Annual increments and debarring him from promotion for 3 (three) years under Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer in the Regional Office of the Pollution Control Board, Assam, at Nagan. On 05.12.2012 the Regional Executive Engineer being the in-charge of the aforesaid regional office received an application from one Dilmonjoy Bathori of M/s D. and J. Enterprise, Dima Hasao, for obtaining consent to establish an industry. According to the petitioner, upon receipt of the application dated 05.12.2012 the Regional Executive Engineer forwarded the application to him o...
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
P.K. Sarkar, J.1. Shri S. Raghumani Singh, a Special Class Contractor for contract works under the P.W.D., Government of Manipur, has filed the present writ petition, praying for a direction on the respondents to quash the letter of acceptance dated 21-3-1998 (Annexure A/4) and also for a direction to the respondents to dispose of his representation dated 5-12-1997 (Annexure A/3).2. The respondent No. 2, Superintending Engineer, National Highway Circle, PWD, Govt. of Manipur invited tenders from special Class Contractors to quote rates for road work on N. H. 39, Manipur by Tender Notice No. 4/97 dated 6-6-1997 for strengthening of existing double lane pavement and widening to double lane standard on NH 39 in Manipur including construction of ROC Slab Culverts, etc. etc. In connection with the aforesaid work, a meeting was held on 20-8-1997 where 13 Special Contractors were selected for quoting their rates for the aforesaid works. Tenders were opened on 8-1-1987 at 3.30 p.m. by the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Can an Army authority, in exercise of its powers under Section 125 of the Army Act, 1950, seek, for the purpose of investigation or trial, the custody of a person, who is subject to the Army Act, but in the custody of a criminal Court on accusation of having committed an offence, which is triable under the Army Act too, if the case, in connection with which the person is in custody, is under investigation by police or under an inquiry as contemplated by Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? When a case lodged against a person, who is subject to the Army Act, 1950. is still pending for investigation by the police, whether it is permissible for a Court of ordinary criminal justice to hand over to the Army authorities, mentioned in Section 125 of the Army Act, the custody of the person, who is subject to the Army Act, but is in custody of the ordinary criminal Court on accusation of having committed an offence, which is also punishable under the Army Act, 1950,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By making this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the petitioner, who was complainant in Complaint Case No. 209/2004, has sought' for, inter alia, setting aside and quashing the judgment and order, dated 2-5-2005, passed, in Criminal Revision No. 6(l)/2005, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, has set aside the order, dated 3-8-2004, passed, in Complaint Case No. 209/2004, whereby the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, took cognizance of offences under Section 420/506/294/34, IPC and directed issuance of processes to the accused named therein.2. The material facts, which have led to the making of the present application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. may be set out as follows:(i) The petitioner herein lodged a complaint, which gave rise to the Complaint Case No. 209/2004 aforementioned, the complainant's case being, briefly stated, thus : The complainant is the proprietor of a business concern, which is run under the name and sty...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T.N.R. Tirumaupad, J.C.1. This is an application for the issue of a certificate under Article 134(l)(c) of the Constitution.2. The petitioner Amal Roy Choudhary who was an. Inspector of the Procurement Directorate of the Tripura Government was prosecuted along with two others, Abdul Rahaman who was a purchasing agent of food grains at Baksanagar for the Government and Gopal Chakravorty who was also an Inspector like the petitioner. Abdul Rahaman was charged Under Section 420 IPC that he on 16th March, 1954 cheated the Government of Tripura by dishonestly inducing it to deliver Rs. 87,900/- through the Sonamura Sub-Treasury.The petitioner was charged with abetment that he abetted Abdul Rahaman in the commission of the offence of cheating by giving two false certificates dated 28-2-1954 and 2-3-1954 which were marked as Exts. P-7 and P-8 at the trial and thereby made it possible for the said Abdul Rahaman to commit the said offence. Gopal Chakravorty was 'also charged with abetment. But...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
S.C. Das, J. 1. The genesis of both the writ petitions, is an incident, which occurred on 23.09.2003 at about 5.00 pm in the office premises of National Research Centre for Mushroom(for short, NRCM), at Chambaghat, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Both the respondents, Dr. Sarveswar Dayal(hereinafter referred to as Dr. Dayal) and Dr. Yash Gupta(hereinafter referred to as Dr. Gupta) are husband and wife and they were on their official duty, while working as Scientist(Senior Scale) under Indian Council of Agricultural Research(for short, ICAR). 2. Having considered the submissions, made by learned counsel of both side, both the writ cases are taken up together for hearing and disposal, since the cases arose out of same incident and identical question of law and fact, involved in both the cases for decision by this Court. Therefore, this common judgment shall govern both the cases. 3. NRCM is an organization having its office/establishment at Solan, Himachal Pradesh under ICAR. The petitioners, h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. When a person makes an application, having forged signatures thereon, to a revenue court seeking mutation of his name along with the name of the person, whose signature stands forged, in the record of rights, can a criminal court take cognizance of the offence of forgery, which such an applicant might have committed, without acomplaint, in writing, of the revenue court, where the application was made or of a court to which the revenue court is subordinate? This is the moot question, which the present Criminal Petition has raised. This question, in turn, gives rise to yet another question and the question is this: Whether the bar in taking cognizance, created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Code'), applies only when the offence has been committed with respect to a document after the document was already produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court (i.e, during the time, when the document was in custodia legis), ...
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!