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


Ram Pal v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 66963 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 4612 (21 October 2005)


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).


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari ,J


         Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ghanshyam Dwivedi counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 to 4 and the Standing counsel.

        This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated 22.7.2005, appended as Annexure 16 passed by the respondent no. 4 to the writ petition except the portion of the impugned order revocating the order of suspension of the petitioner.

      By the impugned order, the respondent no. 4 has imposed the punishments of (i) stoppage of two annual increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect (ii) apart from subsistence allowance, no other payment shall be made to the petitioner for the period during which he remained under suspension (iii) recovery of Rs. 18,700/- from the monthly salary of the petitioner for causing loss to the Jal Sansthan and (iv) No work shall be taken from the petitioner in future concerning revenue. There were complaints against the petitioner of embezzlement and taking bribe etc. This order of punishment has been passed as the petitioner was found not discharging his duties properly and for indulging in irregularities causing loss of Rs.18,700/- to the Jal Sansthan.

      The award of punishment of stoppage of increments is based on the guilt having been proved. So far as question of payment of full salary during the period of suspension is concerned, law empowers the punishing authority to use his discretion in this matter. So far as the alleged recovery of Rs.18,700/- from the salary of the petitioner is concerned, the authority found that the petitioner is responsible for causing loss of Rs.18,700/- to the Jal Sansthan which is to be made good by him and no one else.

      No illegality or infirmity could be pointed out in the impugned order calling for interference in the writ jurisdiction.

      For the reasons stated above, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

      The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dt. 21.10.2205



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.