JAGDISH PRAAAD SAXENA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT NOW MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1960-10-3
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on October 28,1960

JAGDISH PRASAD SAXENA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

NAGARJUNA GRAMEENA BANK VS. M F BRUCE [LAWS(APH)-1995-9-69] [REFERRED TO]
WILBIRTHFORTH MOMIN VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(GAU)-2007-2-45] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR SURVEY OF INDIA ASSAM AND NAGALAND GDC VS. SUBRATA KUMAR SEN [LAWS(GAU)-2010-1-32] [REFERRED TO]
MAHANANDA BHADURI VS. ASSTT COMMERCIAL SUPERINTENDENT S E RLY ,KHARAGPUR [LAWS(CAL)-1974-5-34] [REFERRED]
BIPAD BHANJAN SARKAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1976-8-40] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERMENT OF A P VS. M A MAJEED [LAWS(APH)-2005-10-91] [REFERRED TO]
AMRUT RAO PATIL VS. CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE [LAWS(APH)-2010-8-133] [REFERRED TO]
M.RAJAGOPAL VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2020-12-352] [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAM VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2012-11-113] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA KHAN VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2014-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
NETAR PAL VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT AND ANR. [LAWS(P&H)-2010-11-349] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO OP SOCIETY VS. LABOUR COURT [LAWS(APH)-1975-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA BHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-1-108] [REFERRED TO]
G MANOHARAN VS. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(APH)-2006-3-187] [REFERRED TO]
S. VENKATACHALAM VS. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELEGRAPH, SALEM DN. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MAD)-1968-11-45] [REFERRED TO]
M.F. KHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-9-84] [REFERRED TO]
KASI M VS. MGMT OF INDIAN BANK [LAWS(MAD)-2001-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
PRONAB KUMAR MUKHERJEE VS. ALLAHABAD BANK [LAWS(CAL)-1991-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ BABU AGNIHOTRI VS. LABOUR COMMISSIONER [LAWS(ALL)-2002-7-129] [REFERRED TO]
ABBAS ALI VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2013-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
LANKALA KODERU CO OP RURAL BANK LTD VS. UNGARALAPULLAIAH NAIDU [LAWS(APH)-2002-7-50] [REFERRED TO]
B P JOSHI ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RAJKOT VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED MADRAS [LAWS(GJH)-1998-11-32] [REFERRED]
RM THIRUNAVUKARASU VS. REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KILPAUK CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2007-9-210] [REFERRED TO]
M MARIMUTHU VS. GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-654] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKANT GAUTAM VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2013-7-258] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND ANR. VS. ANIL KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2002-1-93] [REFERRED TO]
NAGARJUNA GRAMEENA BANK REP VS. M P BRUCE [LAWS(APH)-1995-1-35] [REFERRED TO]
R LALTHANZAMA VS. MIZORAM RURAL BANK [LAWS(GAU)-2015-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMA CHARAN VS. COMMISSIONER ROHELKHAND DIVISION BAREILLY [LAWS(ALL)-1967-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
BISWANARTH VS. UNION OF INDIALTD [LAWS(CAL)-1971-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
R GOVINDARAJAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT TIRUCHI [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
MALKHANSINGH NIRPATSINGH VS. INSPECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE P I [LAWS(MPH)-1961-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU NATH RAM SON OF SRI LALAN RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE VS. THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY [LAWS(PAT)-2016-11-46] [REFERRED TO]
DR. C.P. RAI VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2017-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA MOHAN TIWARI VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-395] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. A.V.TUNGARE [LAWS(BOM)-2014-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
CHITTARANJAN ROY VS. GENERAL MANAGER [LAWS(CAL)-1969-6-26] [REFERRED TO]
BIRPARA TEA CO LTD VS. FIFTH INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(CAL)-1970-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH LALDINSANGA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2020-5-58] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN SOOD VS. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK [LAWS(HPH)-1998-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
AMIN CHAND VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-5-132] [REFERRED TO]
V O KORUTHU VS. KSEB [LAWS(KER)-1971-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
H C SARIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-1964-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA PRASAD VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA MUZAFFARPUR [LAWS(PAT)-1986-4-2] [DISTINGUISHED]
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY VISVESVARAYA IRON AND STEEL LTD VS. V KRISHNAMURTHY [LAWS(MAD)-1990-12-65] [REFERRED TO]
SHEOKUMAR TIWARI VS. JANAPADA SABHA [LAWS(MPH)-1968-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
CHANNABASAPPA BASAPPA HAPPALI VS. STATE OF MYSORE [LAWS(SC)-1970-10-1] [DISTINGUISHED]
JATINDRA MOHAN GOSWAMI AND ANR. VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1961-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
DENIS CHEM LAB LIMITED VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
DEVI PRASAD PANDEY VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(CHH)-2017-7-35] [REFERRED TO]
REHAN AHMED LASKAR VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2005-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN VS. DHARMENDRA SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2016-2-331] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND NARAIN VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1962-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
BIRENDRA SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2017-3-30] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR DIXIT VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. [LAWS(MPH)-2018-6-115] [REFERRED TO]
MOCHI LAL SINGH VS. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT [LAWS(PAT)-1989-3-37] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUNWAR SINGH VS. SETTLEMENT OFFICER (CONSOLIDATION), AZAMGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1993-2-105] [REFERRED TO]
DAVID WILSON K VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(APH)-2001-8-114] [REFERRED TO]
JOYDEV KANDAR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-1992-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
ISHWARBHAI R PATEL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2015-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH CHAND VERMA VS. NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(HPH)-2007-9-89] [REFERRED TO]
H R HAREESH KUMAR VS. CHAIRMAN AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY CENTRAL SILK BOARD BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-2002-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
H C SARIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1965-8-1] [REFERERD TO]
LALCHHANHIMA VS. MIZORAM APEX SERICULTURE COOPERATIVE LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2015-6-102] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANAN NAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1962-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
ZIA UD DIN CHANGAL VS. KASHMIR MERCANTILE COOPERATIVE BANK [LAWS(J&K)-2021-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
RAMLAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-1962-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN HEMBRAM VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(CAL)-2010-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
S N PANDEY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1998-11-155] [REFERRED TO]
PREM CHANDRA YADAV ASSISTANT TEACHER CANTONMENT BOARD BOYS PRIMARY SECTION VS. CANTONMENT BOARD [LAWS(ALL)-2004-4-25] [REFERRED TO]
T VENKATA NARAYANA VS. GIRIJAN CO OPERATIVE CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(APH)-2006-12-114] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SUBHAK OJHA VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(CAL)-1964-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
TARA SADAN HATTACHARYYA VS. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA [LAWS(CAL)-1965-8-31] [REFERRED]
P.P. HARITH VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(CA)-2007-3-71] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTHAN STEEL LTD VS. THEIR WORKERS [LAWS(ORI)-1968-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PASWAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
S SHANMUGAM VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2004-11-146] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM LAL ROSHAN LAL VS. PUNJAB STATE [LAWS(P&H)-1962-1-11] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Gajendragadkar, J. - (1.)This appeal by special leave arises out of a petition filed by the appellant Jagdish Prasad Saxena against the respondent, the State of Madhya Pradesh, in the High Court of Madhya Bharat, in which he prayed that a writ of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction should be issued against the respondent quashing the order passed by it on December 3, 1953, terminating the services of the appellant as from October 2, 1951, when he had been suspended. A chargesheet in regard to the proceedings taken against the appellant was furnished to him on October 17, 1951; but it is common ground that no fresh enquiry had been subsequently held before the impugned order was passed against him. The High Court has, however, held that in the enquiry which had been held before the appellant was furnished with the chargesheet he had substantially admitted the material facts on which the chargesheet was framed, and so failure to hold a formal enquiry after giving him the chargesheet had not caused any prejudice to him; that is why the High Court refused to issue a writ as claimed by the appellant and dismissed his petition. In his present appeal by special leave the appellant challenges the correctness and propriety of the said decision.
(2.)The appellant was permanently employed in the department of Customs and Excise by the respondent as a distillery inspector, and at the material time he was posted at Barwaha in the district of Khargone. It is admitted that he was governed by the rules and regulations of the State Civil Service. At Barwaha there is a distillery as well as a warehouse in a separate building within the same premises. Kethulekar was a warehouse clerk in charge of the warehouse and Narona was the distiller. On July 12, 1951, at about 5 P. M., when the appellant was about to leave the distillery Narona asked for the key of the receiver for taking flow readings, and the appellant gave the key with instructions to Kethulekar to supervise the distillation. It appears that Kethulekar, who was then on duty, issued liquor to Nathu, Contractor of Piplia, to whom a permit had been issued in respect of one gallon of Narangi (of strength 25 U. P.), 20 gallons of Rasi (of strength 60 U. P.) and two gallons of Dubara (of strength 25 U. P.) for which the contractor had deposited in the treasury Rs. 180-6-0. At the time of the said issue of liquor, however, the contractor was given one gallon of Narangi and 32 gallons of Dubara, that is to say, an excess quantity of 30 gallons of Dubara was illegally given to him thereby causing a loss of Rs. 305-10-0 to the government. According to the appellant, Kethulekar acting in concert with Narona transferred some liquor from the receiver to the warehouse Vat in order to make up the deficiency consequent upon the illegal issue of liquor to the contractor. Some informer reported this matter to the Superintendent of Customs and Excise who immediately rushed to the place and seized the entire stock of liquor from Nathu contractor.
(3.)On July 13, 1951, the Superintendent along with the appellant held a preliminary enquiry in the case; at this enquiry all the three persons admitted their guilt, and the Superintendent eventually recovered Rs. 305-6-0 from Kethulekar to compensate the department for the loss caused by the illegal delivery of 30 gallons of Dubara, and he was suspended from July 17, 1951.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.