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


Cisf 872190263 Ex Constable Gulab Singh Yadav v. Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force & Others - WRIT - A No. 6331 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 9596 (16 May 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).



By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the orders dated 26.12.2001, 4/5.7.1997 and 25/26.6.1995, Annexures 5,2 and 1 to the writ petition respectively.

The petitioner who was a constable in a Central Industrial Security Force, when the petitioner was posted at Bharat Pump & Compressors limited, Naini, Allahabad, his services were terminated without serving any charge sheet as well as the inquiry report. The total proceeding against the petitioner was behind his back. The services of the petitioner were terminated without following the procedure as provided under the rules. The petitioner has submitted an appeal. The appeal too without considering this aspect of the matter that no proper procedure as provided in the law was followed and the total proceeding against the petitioner is an exparte, has been dismissed by order dated 4/5.2.97. Copy of the same has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed a revision as provided under the rules. The revision of the petitioner has also been dismissed on the ground of limitation. The petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware regarding that the petitioner has a remedy by way of filing the revision and as the petitioner was not feeling well; therefore, he could not file the revision within time. An explanation to that effect was given but the revisional Court without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact was pleased to dismiss the revision vide its order dated 26.12.2001. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Though the petitioner submits that as the writ petition was filed in the year 2002 and counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, therefore, the matter be decided on merit.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sunit Kumar and Sri Deepak Verma who appears for the respondents. Without entering into the factual controversy involved in the present writ petition as the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of limitation, as such the order dated 26.12.2001 passed by respondent no.1, Annexure-5 to the writ petition is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no.1 to decide the revision of the petitioner on merit without taking into consideration the question of limitation and will pass an appropriate detailed and reasoned order according to law if possible after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise may be taken by the respondent no.1, if possible preferably within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. No order as to costs.



W.P.No. 6331 of 2002


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.