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


Hari Ballabh Tripathi v. D.M. & Others - WRIT - A No. - 53036 of 1999 [2007] RD-AH 17477 (6 November 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. 26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53036 of 1999

Hari Ballabh Tripathi


District Magistrate, Varanasi and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner has filed present writ petition questioning the validity of the order dated 26.08.1999 by means of which conduct of the petitioner has been condemned for misbehaviour and adverse entry has been awarded and one annual increment has been withheld and directives have been issued for non-payment of amount of subsistence allowance.

Brief background of the case is that petitioner had been performing and discharging duties in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer, District Varanasi. On 20.11.1998 allegations came forward that petitioner has misbehaved with employees of the office under the influences of intoxication. Petitioner was placed under suspension on 23.11.1998 and charge sheet was issued to petitioner. Petitioner submits that on various occasion documents which has been made foundation and basis were demanded for but same was not supplied and ultimately report was submitted on 13.03.1999. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 01.04.1999 to which petitioner has submitted reply on 20.04.1999 and thereafter order impugned has been passed which is subject of matter of challenge.

Counter affidavit has been filed to which rejoinder affidavit has been filed.

After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

Sri S.K. Lal advocate contended with vehemence that in the present case disciplinary proceedings undertaken is farce and the fact of the matter is that no inquiry whatsoever were undertaken and unnecessarily petitioner has been punished as such impugned order in question is unsustainable.

Learned Standing counsel on the other hand contended that for purported misconduct minor punishment has been imposed for which no inquiry is required, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which is emerging is to the effect that in the present case for committing misbehavior with the advocates and employees under influence of intoxication petitioner was placed under suspension and was issued charge sheet and after charge sheet in question has been issued inquiry was undertaken and report was submitted on 10.03.1999. Petitioner was issued show cause notice with proposed punishment. To the said show cause notice, petitioner has submitted his reply on 26.03.1999 and after said reply has been submitted the disciplinary authority passed order of punishment.

Entire emphasis of arguments advanced is that in the present case full fledged procedure provided for taking oral evidence etc. has not been followed and as such inquiry proceedings is vitiated. In the present case minor punishment has been imposed and while imposing minor penalty issuance of show cause notice and consideration of reply to the said show cause notice is sufficient compliance of principal of natural justice and rule of fair play as that is the only requirement. Petitioner has been issued show cause notice to which he has submitted his reply and thereafter based on the same impugned decision in question has been taken. Once minor penalty has been imposed and lenient and liberal view has been taken in the matter qua the conduct of petitioner as such this Court refuses to interfere with the same, seeing the nature of allegation.

Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed.

Dated : 06th November, 2007



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.