Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(2)JCR712(Jhr)]
ORDERTapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Junior Counsel to the Additional Advocate General for the State of Jharkhand.2. By order dated 20.12.2001, the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna was ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 4 and that is how Mr. A. Allam who had accepted notice on behalf of the State of Bihar is representing the case of the said respondent.3. The grievance of the writ petitioner in the instant case is for quashing the order dated 16.3.2000 (as contained at Annexure-10) passed by the respondent No. 4 whereby and whereunder 20% of the pension payable to the petitioner was ordered to be deducted as a measure of punishment. By reason of the said order, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.4. The shorts facts which are necessary to be taken note of for purposes of adjudi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC892; [1958]1SCR571
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Saurashtra in a writ petition filed by the respondent, setting aside an order passed by the State of Saurashtra on October 30, 1952 retiring him from service. 2. The respondent was appointed in 1948 Memandari, that is, Superintendent of State Guest Houses, in what was the State of Junagadh when it was administered by the Government of India, and was, later on, confirmed in that appointment. In 1949, Junagadh became integrated into the State of Saurashtra, and, thereafter, the services of the respondent were continued by that State, and he was appointed from time to time to various posts. On June 15, 1950, he was appointed Sales Tax Officer, Madhya Saurashtra, Rajkot, and was confirmed in that post on April 16, 1952. On October 30, 1952, the Government of Saurashtra, purporting to act under Government Resolution No. 60 of 1948 as it then stood, passed an order compulsorily terminating his servi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj244
1. The respondent, who was the plaintiff, filed a suit against the State of Bombay for a declaration that the order dismissing him from service as a Deputy Superintendent of Police was illegal, null and void and for consequential reliefs and also to recover Rs. 4300/- by way of arrears of salary etc., upto May, 1954. He also prayed for salary and other allowances upto the date of reinstatement and for other reliefs. The first Court granted a decree on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was given to the plaintiff as required by Article 311 of the Constitution. The plaintiff's suit was substantially decreed and almost all the reliefs were awarded. In first appeal, the District Judge, Jamnagar, confirmed this decree of the trial Court. In this second appeal it is urged by the State of Gujarat, which has taken the place of the State of Bombay who was the original defendant, that reasonable opportunity has been given. 2. In the course of the arguments various contentions have been ur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2714
ORDERN.A. Britto, J.1. Heard. Admit. By consent heard forthwith.2. This revision is directed against the Order dated 18-11-2004 of the learned Special Judge , Margoo, by which the learned Special Judge has ordered the framing of the charge against the applicant/accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.3. The accused is a public servant who, at the relevant time was working as a Garrison Engineer, Project (P), Naval Works (NW), Vasco. The allegations against the accused is that on or about 19-8-2002 the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5000/-from Shri Umesh Salgaonkar, partner of M/s. S. K. Salgaonkar and Bros., Vasco, Goa, as motive or reward for recommending the extension period for completion of the works of construction for the Navy at Nofra, Goa, and, on 20-8-2002 accepted same, pursuant to the said demand.4. At the time of framing of the charge by the learned Special Judge in Special Case No. 5/2003, the accused...
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 : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI C.R.P. No.8/2017 and CM APPLN. No.1602-1603/2017 Judgment reserved on :18. 07.2018 Date of decision :05. 09.2019 GEBR PFEIFFER (INDIA) PVT LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Davesh Bhatia, Advocate versus PRADEEP SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA JUDGMENT ANU MALHOTRA, J.CM No.1602/2017 CM No.1602/2017 an application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 24 days in filing the petition. In the interest of justice, the application is allowed and the delay of 24 days in filing the petition is condoned. The application is disposed. CRP82017 and CM No.1603/2017 (Stay) 1. The petitioner vide this petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended seeks the CRP No.8/2017 Page 1 of 17 setting aside of the order dated 7.9.2016 of the learned ACJ/CCJ/ARC(W), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No.8569/2016 vide which an a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1416; (1985)87BOMLR563; (1985)3CompLJ45(SC); [1985(51)FLR362]; (1985)IILLJ206SC; 1985(2)SCALE133; (1985)3SCC398; [1985]Supp2SCR131; 1985(2)SLJ145(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. The above Appeals by Special Leave granted by this Court and the above Writ Petitions filed either in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India or in different High Courts under Article 226 and transferred to this Court raise a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Articles 309, 310 and 311 of the Constitution and in particular of what is now, after the amendment of Clause (2) of Article 311 by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, the second proviso to that clause.The Genesis of the Appeals and Writ Petitions2. To understand what questions fall for determination by this Court in these Appeals and Writ Petitions, it is first necessary to sketch briefly how they have come to be heard by this Constitution Bench.3. Article 311 of the Constitution confers certain safeguards upon persons employed in civil capacities under the Union of India or a State. The first safeguard (which is given by Clause (1) of Article 311) is that s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1994)ILLJ162bSC; 1994Supp(2)SCC391
ORDERSawant, J.1. This group of matters is at the instance of various parties, viz., Union of India, Public Sector Corporations, Public Sector Banks, State Governments and two private parties. By an order dated August 5, 1991 in Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India v. B. Karu-nakar ST 1992(3) SC 605 a three Judge Bench of this Court referred that matter to the Chief Justice for being placed before a larger Bench, for the Bench found a conflict in the two decisions of this Court, viz., Kailash Chander Asthana etc. etc. v. State of U.P. and Ors. etc. etc. : (1988)IILLJ219SC and Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan : (1991)ILLJ29SC both delivered by the Benches of three learned Judges. Civil Appeal No. 3056 of 1991 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12103 of 1991 along with the other matters in which the same question of law is in issue, has, therefore, been referred to this Bench.2. The basic questions of law which arises in these matters is whether the report of the In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC72; (1966)ILLJ458SC; [1964]4SCR733
Ayyangar, J. 1. This appeal is against a judgment of the High Court, Punjab, dismissing a petition filed by the appellant in that Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and has been preferred pursuant to a certificate of fitness granted under Art. 133(1)(c). 2. The appellant was a Civil Surgeon in the employment of the State Government who had been granted leave preparatory to retirement, and subsequently, in June 1961, orders were passed by Government (1) revoking the leave he had originally been granted and recalling him to duty, (2) simultaneously placing him under suspension pending the result of an inquiry into certain charges of misconduct, and (3) ordering a departmental inquiry against him. The legality of these orders was challenged by the appellant in the petition that he filed in the High Court. The petition was dismissed by the learned Judges, but on application by the appellant, he was granted a certificate of fitness on the strength of which he has filed the present app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker316; (1963)IILLJ290Ker
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In this writ petition, Mr. M. K. Nambiar, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges as illegal and void, the order Ex. P-11, passed by the State Government on 8-3-1963 placing, under suspension, the petitioner, who was at the material time, the 1st Member of the Board of Revenue, in the State. The order shows that the petitioner has been placed under suspension under Rule 7 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, till the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are completed. It is necessary to state the matters which are mentioned in the order, Ex. P-11, which will show, the circumstances under which the State Government decided to take action under Rule 7.2. It is mentioned that the Government have received several petitions containing serious allegations of official misconduct against the petitioner who is a member of the Indian Administrative Service and the First Member of the Board of Revenue and was also...
Tag this Judgment!