Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(4)Raj2865; 2004(2)WLC436
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This writ petition has been presented in the Registry of this Court on 22.12.2000. The petitioner has primarily challenged impugned orders An-nex.62 dated 4.5.1991 whereby pursuant to a departmental enquiry the Appointing Authority has imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service and Annex.64 dated 21.7.1992 whereby the appellate authority maintained the penalty order. On its face, the writ petition suffers from gross delay and, therefore, at the outset this Court called upon the counsel for the petitioner to show sufficient cause why this petition may not be dismissed only on the ground of laches.2. The gruelling narration of the facts leadings to delay in filing the writ petition is that on accrual of the cause of action, after dismissal of his appeal by the appellate authority, the petitioner engaged Shri Vinayak M. Joshi, Advocate and handed over him the file alongwith all relevant material. He also made payment of the full fees and expenses. It i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1986(2)WLN482
Suresh Chandra Agrawal, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, Ravindra Nath, has assailed the order (Ex. 46) dated 16th March, 1984 passed by the Governor of Rajasthan where by the petitioner has been dismissed from service by way of punishment for misconduct.2. The petitioner was a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RFDS). During the period from October, 1980 to February, 1981 he was posted as District & Sessions Judge, Merta. A complaint was made by one Jorawarmal against the petitioner and on the said complaint a preliminary inquiry was conducted by M.C. Jain, J. After the said preliminary inquiry it was decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the petitioner was suspended by order (Ex 2) dated 2nd December, 1981. The Chief Justice nominated Dr. K.S. Sidhu J. as the disciplinary authority to hold the inquiry and the disciplinary authority issued a memorandum (Ex. 3) dated 29th January, 1982 to the petitioner whereby the petitioner w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Order dt:29. 5/2014 1/21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1207/2013 Naresh Pandya V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1204/2013 Ramesh Chandra Chourmar V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1205/2013 Jayendra Kumar Pandya V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.5. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1206/2013 Gebee Lal Meghwal V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.6. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1211/2013 Smt. Ramila Roat V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.7. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1212/2013 Narpat Singh Chouhan V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Date of Order :::29. h May, 2014 REPORTABLE PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the petitioners. Ms.R.R. Kanwar, for the respondents. --- BY THE COU...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996WLC(Raj)UC136; 1995(2)WLN67
J.R. Chopra, J.1. These 22 writ petitions raise almost common questions of law and facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. Briefly stated, the facts of these writ petitions are: that in these writ petitions, the petitioners have mostly challenged the charge sheets that have been served on them for their different acts of misconduct and in most of these wit petitions, the enquiries are pending. In D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3574 of 1991, V.K. Choturvedi v. Union of India and Ors. the petitioner has been reverted to the rank of Sub Inspector for a period of two years vide order Annexure A/6. In D.B.Civil writ petitions No. 6599 of 1991, S.C.Kataria v. U.O.I. and Ors. and 3674 of 1992, Inder Raj Singh v. U.O.I. and Ors. the petitioners have been punished with stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect. In D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4595 of 1991, Om Prakash v. U.O.I. and Ors. the enquiry report was supplied to the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1736; 2005(2)WLC612
K.S. Rathore, J.1. These are two writ petitions involving similar questions of law and, therefore, both the petitions are being heard together and decided by this common order.2. The facts of the writ petition No. 6144/2004 are being taken as leading case. The petitioner in the aforesaid writ petitions has prayed for writ, order or direction to quash and set aside FIR Nos. 109/2004 and 110/2004 registered before Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur and all investigation and proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof.3. The brief facts of the case are that when the petitioner was working as Member, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, an FIR No. 109/2004 under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(a), 13(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read with 120B IPC was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau on 9.6.2004.4. The allegation in the FIR was that according to source information illegal benefit was to be granted by the petitioner by passing a review order in a revenue matter titled Kamla Devi v. State. It was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1998(1)WLC566; 1997(2)WLN501
J.C. Verma, J.1. At the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.2. The petitioner Kalulal, working as District Probation & Social Welfare Officer, was charge-sheeted on certain allegations on 18.2.85 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called as 'the Rules of 1958). Copy of charge-sheet is attached as Annex. 5 to the writ petition. After completing certain formalities, an enquiry officer was appointed as required under the rules. A report was submitted by the enquiry officer which was communicated to the petitioner on 4.9.85. In the report, submitted by the enquiry officer, the petitioner was found guilty and, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and against which show cause notice, the petitioner had made a representation. The objection of the petitioner made in the representation was accepted. It was the case of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1564; 2009(1)WLN83
H.R. Panwar, J.1. These three writ petitions involve common question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are heard and decided together by taking the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5845/2005 as leading case.2. Briefly stated the facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of these writ petitions are that the petitioner was appointed temporarily on the post of Teacher Grade-III by order Annexure-P/1 dated 29th September, 1973. However, subsequently, the services of the petitioner came to be confirmed by order Annexure-P/2 dated, 29th November, 1975 w.e.f. 1.11.1975. While in service, the petitioner for visiting abroad as a tourist and in order to meet his brother filed an application for such permission and also sought No Objection Certificate from the respondent Department. For grant of NOC to the petitioner, his application was forwarded vide communication dated 2nd July, 1982 Annexur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1968)ILLJ475Raj
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a second appeal by the state against the appellate judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur, decreeing the plaintiff's suit in the following terms:(a) The plaintiff is granted a declaration that the orders of departmental authorities evidenced by Exs. 5 and 6 are illegal, and contrary to law.(b) The amount which has been withheld from the pay of the appellant amounting to Ra. 367.(8 was illegally withheld. The plaintiff is granted a decree for that amount,(c) The judgment passed in this case will not prevent the Government from chargesheeting the appellant again in respect of the occurrence of 4 October 1951.(d) The appellant will have costs of the appeal from respondent 1.2. The facts leading to this second appeal may be briefly stated as follows.The plaintiff-respondent was appointed as a sub-inspector of police on 14 December 1949 and was subsequently confirmed on 8 August 1952. In the month of October 1961 he was stationed at Banner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973(6)WLN194
Kan Singh, J.1. The second appeal before me which is by a civilian employee of the Defence Department raises the question whether such an employee can challenge the order of his dismissal from service in a civil court.2. Jeewanpuri was appointed as a 'Lasker' in the grade of 30 and 35 in March, 1952 in Wing No. 3, Indian Air Force Station at Palam by the Commanding Officer of the Wing. In March, 1955 he acquired quasi permanent status In October, 1957 he came to be transferred to the Air Force Flying College, at Jodhpur on a similar post. At Jodhpur he organised a union of class IV civilians and became its Secretary. This Union came to be affiliated with the Indian National Trade Union Congress. On account of his activities the plaintiff came to be served with certain charges, an enquiry was made against him and finally he was visited with the punishment of removal and dismissal from service on the charges framed against him.3. After serving a notice under Section 80 CPC. to the Union ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1954Raj185
Sharma, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Sardar inder Singh and Krishi Sahkarini Samiti, Bhimnagar, through its Secretary, Satya Pal Singh, against the State of Rajasthan, the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, the Anti Ejectment Officer, Bayana, and 23 other respondents, who were applicants before the Anti Ejectment Officer in 23 different cases under Section 7, Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 (NO. IX Of 1949). 2. The petitioners' case is that the petitioner No. 1 leased the whole of his land 582 bighas to the petitioner No. 2 for a period of 10 years in connection with the 'GROW MORE FOOD CAMPAIGN', and got the patta registered before the Tehsildar, Bayana, on 1-3-1952, and the possession of the land was transferred by the petitioner No. 1 to the petitioner No. 2 by the date of registration of the patta. The respondents Nos. 4 to 26 filed separate applications in the Court of S.D.O., Bayana, under Section 7, Rajasthan (Protection ...
Tag this Judgment!