B.S.CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) THE petitioner, an officer of the Judicial Services of this State, has challenged the order of the High Court on the administrative side dated 11 -2 -2005 (Annexure - 11) whereby the petitioner has been deprived of three increments by withholding the same with cumulative effect. The matter has been contested by the High Court and a counter -affidavit has been filed sworn by Shri P.K. Goel, Joint Registrar (Inspection) denying the allegations contained in the writ petition.
(2.) WE have heard Shri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Amit Sthalekar, Advocate for the respondent High Court and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1. The petitioner, while working as Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur, granted bail on 29 -6 -1993 to an accused named Atul Mehrotra in Crime Case No. 3240 of 1992 under Section 420, 467, 468, IPC arising out of crime No. 216 of 1986, Police Station Collectorganj, Kanpur Nagar. Not only this, an application was moved by the said accused under Section 239, Cr. P.C. for discharge which was also allowed within 10 days vide order dated 6 -8 -1993. The said order of discharge was however reversed in a revision filed by the State later on and directions were issued to proceed against the accused.
(3.) THE facts, in short, of the case in which the petitioner had passed the aforesaid orders, were that Atul Mehrotra had been charged of having cheated the Punjab National Bank, Birhana Road Branch, Kanpur Nagar by defrauding it, an amount of Rs. 9,78,969/ - (Rupees Nine Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Nine only). The accused had been charged of having resorted to forgery and manipulation of bank accounts and documents. According to the prosecution case, the accused was liable to be punished for imprisonment with life on such charges being proved, and as such, the officer concerned committed a gross error of jurisdiction by extending the benefit of bail to the accused on the same day when he surrendered before the Court. Further, this was not a case where the accused ought to have been discharged and the order passed by the officer was, therefore, an act of undue haste.;