Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Shyam Bihari Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 64330 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 477 (6 January 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64330 of 2005

Shyam Bihari Singh


State of U.P. & Ors.

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Shishir Kumar, J.

When the list was revised on 04.10.2005, nobody was present to press the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed in default. Now an application has been filed for recalling the order dated 04.10.2005.

We have considered the grounds taken in the affidavit filed in support of the restoration application and we are satisfied with the same. As such, we allow the recall application, recall the order dated 04.10.2005, restore the petition to its original number and hear the writ petition on merit.

The petitioner was appointed as Ganna Gram Sewak in the year 1979. He was suspended on 26.06.1982 on the basis of a complaint submitted by Sachiv, Sahkari Ganna Vikas Ltd., Majhola. A charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 28.02.1983.  Enquiry was held and a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner for punishment of removal from service. The petitioner submitted his reply. Thereafter, an order was passed inflicting major punishment reverting the petitioner to the lowest grade of pay scale. An appeal was filed by the petitioner before the District Cane Officer, Bareilly in 1985 which has not been decided till date. After a lapse of about 14 years, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. The Tribunal, after considering the case of the petitioner has recorded a finding of fact that the claim petition filed by the petitioner was highly time barred as the explanation given by the petitioner that he was making representation for disposal of the appeal and when the appeal was not decided, he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, was not found to be satisfactory. The Tribunal has dealt with the issue in detail and recorded a finding that the petitioner has approached the Tribunal after a lapse of 14 years and the explanation given by the petitioner is not satisfactory for the reason that during the enquiry also, he was provided full opportunity of personal hearing and the Competent Authority passed the order of punishment on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer.

In view of the aforesaid facts, we see no justification to interfere in the matter. The petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.