Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM KAILASH versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Kailash v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT - A No. 34303 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 9255 (15 May 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                               Court No.31

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34303 of 2001

Ram Kailash

Versus

Union of India and others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri H.C. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.

The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 12.1.2001 whereby it has been declared that the petitioner would not be eligible to promotion for a period of five years from the date of punishment.

Admittedly the petitioner has been found guilty of the charge of having stolen Government property and consequently he was awarded punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days and recovery of an amount of Rs. 1140/- on account of the damage caused to the Government property. In such circumstances, a condition had been imposed by the impugned order dated 12.1.2001, that since major punishment has been awarded hence, in terms of the Standing Order No. 1 of 1990, the petitioner would not be eligible to promotion for a period of five years from the date of punishment.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since in the punishment order there was no such condition with regard to forfeiture of promotion, the same could not have been imposed on the basis of Standing Order, which are merely executive instructions. In support thereof he submits that although Section 51 (h) of the ITBP Force Act, 1992 may provide for forfeiture of promotion as a mode of punishment but since the same was not incorporated in the punishment order itself, the promotion of the petitioner cannot be withheld on the basis of the executive instructions.

In my view, the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not worthy of acceptance inasmuch as the Act itself provides for forfeiture of promotion as a mode of punishment. The Standing Order No. 1 of 1990 only clarifies that a person who has been awarded major punishment would not be given promotion for a period of five years from the date of such punishment. In such view of the matter since the petitioner has admittedly been awarded major punishment, the order disentitling him to promotion for a period of five years on the basis of the said Standing Order is fully justified and in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1992.

Thus, on the aforesaid facts, in my view, no interference is called for in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Since the period of five years from the date of punishment has already expired, the case of the petitioner for promotion may now be considered, in accordance with law.  

Dt/-15.5.2007

PS

               


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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