Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRABHU DAYAL versus STATE OF RAJ & ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PRABHU DAYAL v STATE OF RAJ & ORS - CW Case No. 6788 of 2005 [2006] RD-RJ 568 (3 April 2006)

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6788/05

Prabhu Dayal Vs. State & Ors.

Date of Order : 03/04/2006

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

Mr. Ashok Gaur, for petitioner

The petitioner was appointed as Police dt.14th

Constable after his selection vide order

August, 1987. Because of concealment of material information, he was served with the charge sheet and after holding inquiry, was found guilty and punished dt.24th with removal from service vide order

February, 1994 [Ann.1]. Against which, writ petition was preferred, which was dismissed by this court and the Division Bench has also dismissed the appeal, reference of which has been made in Para 5 of the writ petition.

Counsel for petitioner submits that after the order of his removal from service has attained finality, the Government took a policy decision dt.20/11/02 [Ann.3] that those, who were facing criminal trial and finally acquitted after 1996 even there was concealment on their part at the time of entry into service, will be considered for appointment and in pursuance thereof, 112 persons were given appointment in terms of its policy. But, so far as the petitioner is concerned, despite representation and legal notice of demand for justice served, his candidature has not been considered.

In my opinion, removal from service has been examined by this court and find no illegality in the impugned decision dt.24/2/94, no further appeal was preferred by the petitioner, any change of decision of the Government at later stage will not recall the order which once attained finality.

I find no force in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Counsel for petitioner lastly submits that in view of policy, the petitioner may also be permitted to submit representation. In my opinion, the petitioner is always fee to submit representation, if so advised. [Ajay Rastogi],J.

FRB


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.