Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHANDRAMA PRASAD MISRA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chandrama Prasad Misra v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 29301 of 2003 [2003] RD-AH 203 (14 July 2003)

 

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. 34

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.29301 OF 2003

Chandrama Prasad Misra       ----- Petitioner

Vs.

State of U.P. & ors.         -----       Respondents

Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble D.P.Gupta, J.

(By Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J.)

This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow dated 12.3.2003, by which the learned Ttribunal rejected the application of restoration as the petitioner's case stood dismissed in default.

Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was in service. After holding the enquiry on the charge of gross negligence vide order dated 9.3.1984, he was punished imposing the punishment of reversion and reduction in pay-scale. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. As none appeared, vide order dated 28.11.1985, the same was dismissed in default. Petitioner filed an application for restoration of the case and recalling the said order dated 28.11.1985. That application was also dismissed in default on 15.4.1988. Another application was filed to recall both the orders dated 28.11.1985 and 15.4.1988, and the same has been rejected vide order dated 12.3.2003. Hence this petition.

The learned Tribunal has held that the petitioner has throughout been negligent and never prosecuted his case with diligence. After the order was passed on 15.4.1988, application for restoration was filed after the lapse of more than five years. The learned Tribunal did not find any ground for restoration of the case.

We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

14.7.2003

AKSI


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.