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


Kalu Ram v. State Public Service Tribunal & Others - WRIT - A No. 1319 of 1998 [2004] RD-AH 1241 (28 October 2004)


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. 1

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1319 of 1998

Kalu Ram       ...............      ...............  Petitioner.


State Public Service Tribunal & others......Respondents.

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J.

Hon'ble V.S.Bajpai, J.

1. The petitioner was appointed as Civil Police constable in August, 1963. On 13.6.1988 he was posted to discharge election duty. He completed election duty but did not report back. He joined his duty on 4.10.1989. He was given two separate notices No. 316/1990 dated 2.2.1991 to show cause why he should not be treated on leave without pay for the period from 13.6.88 to 4.10.89 and also for awarding censure entry. Subsequently on 16.10.1991 these notices dated 2.2.91 were recalled and he was issued a charge sheet on 25.12.91. The enquiry officer has submitted his report on 14.5.92 and by order dated 22.7.92 he was dismissed from service. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed on 5.9.1992. The petitioner filed a claim petition before U.P. Public Services Tribunal which was also dismissed on 30.7.1992. Hence the present writ petition.

2. We have heard Sri Ashok Khare and Sri A.K.Siingh, counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the respondents. The counsel for the petitioner raised the following submissions before us:-

· The proceedings against the petitioner were started by the notice dated 2.2.91 but these proceedings were dropped by an order dated 16.10.91 and as such no charge sheet could be given on the same misconduct.  

· The past conduct of the petitioner cannot be taken into account in the enquiry proceedings.

· The punishment awarded to the petitioner is excessive.

3. We have considered the aforementioned submissions. It is correct that the petitioner was given notice on 2.2.91 to show cause why he should not be treated on leave without pay and for awarding censure entry but these notices were withdrawn. Nevertheless this does not mean that the petitioner was exonerated. He was not exonerated of the misconduct and as such departmental proceeding could. always be taken.

4. The conduct of the petitioner has not been taken into account to prove the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. Reference has been made merely in connection of awarding punishment. The previous conduct can be taken into account while awarding the punishment. In view of this there is no force in the second submission.

5. The conduct of an employee is relevant while considering the question of punishment. The enquiry report shows that the petitioner was given awards on previous occasions. He has worked for 30 years. The petitioner was initially never charged for major penalty of dismissal. but was only given notice to show cause as to why he should not be treated on leave without pay and for awarding censure entry.  In these circumstances we affirm the finding that charges have been proved but the question of punishment may be reconsidered. The petitioner is granted liberty to file a representation on the question of punishment before respondent No.3. The representation may be decided by respondent No.3 by a speaking order, if possible, within three months from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioner will file a certified copy of this order; other necessary documents and a duly stamped self-addressed envelope along with his representation. Respondent No.3 after taking decision will inform the petitioner.  It would be open to the respondent No.3 to affirm the punishment awarded earlier or to award lesser punishment. In case any lesser punishment is awarded then the petitioner would not be entitled to any pay allowances etc. for the period that he has not worked.

6. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.




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.