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


Raheesh Pal Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 39928 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 15995 (25 September 2007)

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).


Court No. 33

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39928 of 2006

Rakesh Pal Singh


State of U. P. and others

Hon'ble V. K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner, Rakesh Pal Singh, has filed present writ petition for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.03.1997, and further prayer has been made for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No.3 to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages, in compliance of the order dated 18.01.2005 referred to in order dated 14.03.2005.

Brief facts, giving rise to instant writ petition, are that petitioner was offered appointment under Dying in Harness Rules on 27.07.1984. Nature of appointment was purely temporary and it was liable to be dispensed with without any prior notice or opportunity. During continuance of his service, petitioner was charge sheeted and placed under suspension. Supplementary charge sheet was also issued to him. Inquiry Officer was appointed; he submitted report on 28.02.1997. Befor Inquiry Officer, petitioner did not file any reply or explanation. Thereafter show cause notice was issued to petitioner, to which also petitioner did not submit any reply, and in this background, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Etah on 26.03.1997 proceeded to pass order dispensing with the services of petitioner. A criminal case No.2439 of 2007 was also going on against petitioner in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah. In said criminal case petitioner was discharged on 15.06.2002 on the ground that there was no compliance of Section 197 Cr.P.C. After the said order has been passed, petitioner had been approaching the authority concerned, requesting them that as there was order of discharge passed by competent criminal court, as such he should be reinstated in service. Petitioner has further stated that order was also passed directing his reinstatement by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, and as the said order has not been complied with, petitioner has approached this Court.

Counter affidavit has been filed, and therein it has been contended that order dated 26.03.1997 has attained finality, as such even if petitioner has been acquitted from Criminal Court, no benefit of advantage out of the same can be derived.

After exchange of pleadings, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

Sri Anoop Mishra, Advocate, appearing for petitioner, contended with vehemence that once in criminal case petitioner has been discharged, then petitioner should have been reinstated in service, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned Standing Counsel , on the other hand, contended that criminal case and the departmental disciplinary proceedings stand on different footings, and in criminal case petitioner has been discharged, as there was no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., but as far as order dated 26.03.1997 is concerned , same has attained finality, and the same cannot be permitted to be re-opened at this belated stage. In this background, it has been contended that writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges is to the effect that petitioner had been charge-sheeted and Tehsildar was appointed as Inquiry Officer. On charge-sheet being issued, petitioner did not file any reply. Thereafter Inquiry Officer submitted report on 28.02.1997, and based on the same show cause notice was issued to petitioner, but this time also petitioner failed to submit any reply. In this background, Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass order dispensing with the services of petitioner, directing that during suspension, whatever amount has been paid except that, no further amount shall be paid. Against the said order, petitioner did not prefer any appeal under Rule 11 of the U.P. government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and allowed the said order to attain finality. Criminal case had also been ongoing against petitioner wherein he has been discharged on 15.06.2002 by Criminal Court. Thereafter, petitioner approached the authorities concerned for his reinstatement in service, and Commissioner passed order, when nothing was done at their end, he has approached this Court. Parameters of criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are based on different footing. Merely on account of discharge in criminal case and that too on the ground that there was no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., effect of order dated 26.03.1997, which has attained finality, cannot be diluted or wiped off, and resultantly, no relief can be accorded to petitioner.

In view of what has been stated above, writ petition fails and is 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.