Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP497
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the order passed by the Government dated 26-6-1958 in G. O. Ms. No. 1584 dismissing him from service on a charge of corruption and irregularities in court work. For a proper appreciation o the contentions raised the facts relating to suspension and dismissal of the petitioner and the writ petition and appeal to' the Supreme Court filed by him prior to this petition may be enumerated.2. The petitioner was recruited to the Madras Judicial Service as a District Munsif in 1935 and in 1949 he was promoted to the office of the Subordinate Judge and pasted at Masulipatam on 19-6-1950. The charge of bribery levelled against him was with respect to two connected suits tried by him, O. S. No. 95 of 1946 and O. S. No. 24 of 1949. On 27-7-1950, the trial having concluded, arguments were heard and judgment was reserved. On 10-8-1950, petitions were filed to re-hear the cases, which were allowed and, after hearing the parties, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker374; (1958)IILLJ724Ker
M.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer who has been placed under suspension by Ext. P-7 dated 2-7-1957 and regarding whom a formal and public inquiry has been ordered by Ext. P-9 dated 21-11-1957 under Sec. 2 of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1122. Section 2 of the Act reads as follows: 'If, after a preliminary inquiry or otherwise, our Government are of opinion that there are sufficient grounds for making a formal and public inquiry into the truth of any imputation of misconduct by any person in the service of Our Government not removable from Office without their sanction, our Government shall cause the substance of the imputations to be drawn up into distinct articles of charge and shall order a formal and public inquiry to be made into the truth thereof.' It is clear from the section that the foundation for ordering a formal and public inquiry is the Government's SATISFACTION that there are sufficient grounds for making such an inquiry into the truth of any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1951J& K1
Shiam Krishna Dar, Member 1. This is an appeal against a judgmant & decree of the H. C. dated Sawan 4, 2006, in its appellate jurisdiction, by which it affirmed a judgment & decree, dated 9-9-1947, of the H. C. in its original jurisdiction, whereby the applt's. suit for declaration of wrongful dismissal from service & for consequential damages was dismissed.2. By an Order of Council, dated 14-8-1989, the applt. was dismissed from service on three sets of charges for drawing & passing false T. A, bills & carriage bills, two relating to himself & one relating to his camp clerk. At the time when this order of dismissal was made, the applt was a member of the Civil Service of Kashmir holding the post of the Game Warden, But at its inception in the year 1921, the applt.'s service began as a Lieutenant in the Army from where ib was transferred to the civil administration in the year 1932.3. This order of dismissal was preceded by an enquiry under the Kashmir Civil Service Rules (General) & w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE04H DAY OF JULY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.531 OF2022BETWEEN: DR.ASHOK V., S/O G.M.VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT42YEARS RESIDING AT RAMA GOVINDAPURA NANDAGUDI POST HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN 562 122. WORKING AS DISTRICT OFFICER OFFICE OF THE BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT DC BUILDING CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 562 103. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND:1. . THE STATE BY HONBLE LOKAYUKTHA OF KARNATAKA M.S.BUILDING DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560 001. 2 2 . MR. SYED MALIK PASHA S/O LATE SYED DASTAGIR AGED ABOUT36YEARS RESIDING AT NO.5/92 GADWALPET CHINTAMANI 563 125 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.B.PATIL, SPL.P.P FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE / QUASH THE ORDER DATED0712.2021 PASSED BY THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSION...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2005(107)FLR529]
V.C. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Govind Saran, Advocate learned; standing counsel on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a constable in Railway Protection Force by posting at Allahabad on 18.5.1984. In July 1989, the petitioner was transferred to the outpost Mughal Sarai (MGS) under the Incharge Protection Force (IPF), Chunar.On 19.8.1992, the petitioner proceeded on medical leave by taking sick memo and remained as outdoor patient in the Railway Hospital, Mughal Sarai till 4.1.1993. On 5.1.1993, the petitioner was discharged from sick list by the Divisional Medical Officer-I, Eastern Railway (DMO-I, E.R.),Mughal Sarai in the midst of the treatment without mentioning the fact that the petitioner was fit for duty. The petitioner had to under-go treatment by a private doctor Dr. A.K. Mehta at Ballia with effect fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007(3)CHN505
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the employer, the Union of India, and is directed against order dated 8th June, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No. 836 of 2001 thereby setting aside the order of the appellate authority affirming the order of removal from service of the respondent before us and remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority for appointing an appropriate authority to enquire into the charge against the private respondent in terms of Rule 14(2) of the Service Rules.2. The only ground on which the Tribunal has set aside the order of removal and that of the appellate authority affirming the same is that the enquiry was done by a retired Government servant and according to the Tribunal, it should be done by a sitting Government servant.3. In arriving at such conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(4)AWC3571
R.H. Zaidi, J. 1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 7.9.91 passed by District Judge, Fatzabad dismissing the petitioner from the post of peon of Civil Court, Faizabad.2. Relevant facts of the case as unfolded from the material on record, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon in the Judgeship of Faizabad on 13.11.1987. It was on 1.6.89 Km. Sudha Singh, Vlth Addl. Munsif Magistrate. Faizabad made a complaint to the District Judge that the petitioner firstly approached her not to grant bail to the accused persons but when he failed in his attempt, he has interpolated release order issued, in Case Crime No. 33 of 1989. He added figure '1' in crime number and Interpolated Crime No. 93 of 1989 as Crime No. 193 of 1989, so that the accused who have allegedly assaulted father-in-law of his real brother Sri Ram Bah...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(4)AWC3600
S.H.A. Rara and R.P. Nigam, JJ.1. A departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner who was at the relevant time working as acting Deputy Collector (now retired) on the charges that he made certain allotment of land without complying with the procedure. The charge No. 1 related to the appointment of Rajesh Kumar as Seasonal Collection Amin who was the son of the petitioner. Although his appointment was for a period commenced from 17.2.1993 to 31.3.1993. I.e., only for a period of 1 1/2 months. According to the charge, he never started his duty as Seasonal Collection Amin. The petitioner has also appointed one Sudhir Kumar Shukla as Seasonal Collection Amin for different periods who also did not perform his duties but both these persons have realised their salary. According to charge No. 1, the petitioner also appointed one Raghu Nath Prasad as Seasonal Collection Amin in the month of May, 1993 but he also did not work and his salary was paid. The second charge against the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VIAD(Delhi)245; 70(1997)DLT424; 1997(43)DRJ350
Usha Mehra, J. (1) RULE. (2) Since a short point is involved in this writ petitioner hence it was taken up for disposal. (3) The petitioner has assailed the order of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority thereby directing withholding of promotion for a period of five years from the date she reported for duty i.e. 28th June, 1993 and further the period of her absence from duty from 7th March, 1990 to 27th June, 1993 be treated as break in service under Fr 17(A) and Rule 28 of the Ccs (Pension) Rules. (4) That the impugned order has been assailed primarily on the ground that while imposing the said penalty the disciplinary authority did not afford any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard nor the report of the Enquiry Officer was supplied to her. Moreover, the procedure as laid down under the rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner had not been followed. The disciplinary authority without disagreeing specifically with the finding of the Enquiry Officer imp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)3GLR2441
B.C. Patel, J. 1. The petitioner, who was Chief Minister in the State of Gujarat, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order made by His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat on 17th April, 2000 in exercise of powers under Section 8(3) of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Brief Facts : The petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 2397 of 1999, inter alia, praying for quashing and setting aside the decision/approval dated 17th January, 1997 and/or 28th January, 1997, purported to have been given under Section 19(3) of the Act as well as the letter dated 15th March. 1999. It was alleged in the petition that the respondent No. 2, the present Lokayukta has a bias against the petitioner, and therefore, the proceedings pending before the Lokayukta should not be allowed to continue. Learned single Judge on 9th July, 1999 admitted the petition and granted interim relief. Against the order passed by th...
Tag this Judgment!