ISHWAR CHANDRA JAYASWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2014-1-5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
January 03,2014
Ishwar Chandra Jayaswal
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
SAHIVANAGOUDA H. PATIL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-5-10] [REFERRED TO]NIKHIL CHANDRA ROY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2015-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
RAJNI KANT THAKUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
S.V. SURYANARAYANA VS. APSRTC AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-11-35] [REFERRED TO]
K VENKATESWARA RAO, PERRAGUPETA, KAKINADA VS. D M , APSRTC, RAMACHANDRAPURAM , E G D T &ANR [LAWS(APH)-2016-4-80] [REFERRED]
M. MALLIKA W/O LATE N. MURUGANANTHAM, MALLIGAI ILLAM, BHARTHAI NAGAR, VEDASANDUR POST AND TALUK, DINDIGUL DISTRICT (SUBSTITUTED AS LRS OF THE DECEASED PETITIONER IN M.P(MD)NO.1 OF 2014 VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-12-105] [REFERRED TO]
NILAKANTHA MISHRA VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2017-3-46] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN CHARAN SAHOO VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2017-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA PATTANAIK VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ORI)-2017-4-98] [REFERRED TO]
SATYENDRA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2018-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
RIYAZ MOHD. VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-2-317] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKTI MOHAN LAL MALLIK VS. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-4-206] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHAND MEWADE VS. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2019-5-144] [REFERRED TO]
BIBHUTI BHUSAN NAYAK VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2020-2-67] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL CHANDRA MOHAPATRA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2019-8-63] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted. These Appeals assail the Judgment dated 11.10.2010 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38190 of 2004 as well as the subsequent Order dated 28.3.2012 by which a Review Application in respect of the former was dismissed.
(2.)The Division Bench was confronted with the dismissal from service of the Appellant Dr. Ishwar Chandra Jayaswal against whom three Articles of Charge had been framed. Article-I was that he demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.26/- from Shri Pyare Ram, Khalasi for issuing in his favour a Fit Certificate. Article-II, in similar vein was that the Appellant demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.34/- from Shri Nandlal, Semi-skilled Revetter for issuing him a Fit Certificate. Article-III was that the Appellant had demanded and accepted Rs.18/- from Shri Balroop, Semi-skilled Revetter for issuing of Fit Certificate.
The Inquiry Officer, after duly perusing the entire evidence, returned a finding that Charges 1 and 3 had been proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the response of the Appellant, by its Order dated 22.1.1991 imposed the penalty of removal of the Appellant from service.
(3.)A Revision came to be filed which appears to have attracted the gravamen of challenge before the Division Bench. After considering the manner in which the Revision was heard and decided, the Division Bench in the impugned Order, has come to the conclusion that the President had decided the Revision in accordance with law.
(2.)The Division Bench was confronted with the dismissal from service of the Appellant Dr. Ishwar Chandra Jayaswal against whom three Articles of Charge had been framed. Article-I was that he demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.26/- from Shri Pyare Ram, Khalasi for issuing in his favour a Fit Certificate. Article-II, in similar vein was that the Appellant demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.34/- from Shri Nandlal, Semi-skilled Revetter for issuing him a Fit Certificate. Article-III was that the Appellant had demanded and accepted Rs.18/- from Shri Balroop, Semi-skilled Revetter for issuing of Fit Certificate.
The Inquiry Officer, after duly perusing the entire evidence, returned a finding that Charges 1 and 3 had been proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the response of the Appellant, by its Order dated 22.1.1991 imposed the penalty of removal of the Appellant from service.
(3.)A Revision came to be filed which appears to have attracted the gravamen of challenge before the Division Bench. After considering the manner in which the Revision was heard and decided, the Division Bench in the impugned Order, has come to the conclusion that the President had decided the Revision in accordance with law.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.