Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.A.UMMER, AGED 54 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.A.UMMER, AGED 54 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF - WP(C) No. 34206 of 2006(V) [2007] RD-KL 182 (3 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 34206 of 2006(V)

1. M.A.UMMER, AGED 54 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF
... Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.FAZIL

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

Dated :03/01/2007

O R D E R

K.K. DENESAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C)No. 34206 OF 2006 V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 3rd January, 2007



J U D G M E N T

The petitioner stands dismissed from service as per Ext. P2 order dated 24-8-2004 passed by the 2nd respondent. The reason for imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal from service is that he was found guilty of offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted by the trial court and sentenced to undergo imprisonment and to pay a substantial amount as fine. The petitioner filed appeal before the Court of Sessions. However, he did not get a judgment from the appellate court setting aside the order of conviction. The only relief he got was reduction in the term of imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed Crl.R.P. No. 176 of 2006 before this Court and the same is pending disposal. This Court has suspended the order of sentence but not the conviction.

2. The petitioner challenges Ext. P2 order on various grounds. At the same time he has filed a statutory appeal under the disciplinary rules before WPC No. 34206/2006 -2- the 3rd respondent with a delay condonation petition. Ext. P6 is the appeal and Ext. P7 is the petition for delay condonation. In the circumstances, it is only proper that the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext. P7 and depending on the order to be passed on Ext. P7 to take up for consideration Ext. P6 as well. Ordered accordingly.

3. The writ petition is disposed of fixing a time limit of 2 weeks for the 3rd respondent to pass orders on Ext. P7. Thereafter, Ext. P6 also shall be disposed of without delay. The petitioner will produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and Exts. P6 and P7 before the 3rd respondent for necessary action. K.K. DENESAN

JUDGE

jan/


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.