Back
L. M. SHARMA, M. N. VENKATACHALIAH, R. S. PATHAK
Kailash Chander Asthana: Ami Chand: Ram Kumar Prajapati – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. : State Of U. P. : High Court Of Allahabad – Respondent
Key Points: - (!) Kailash Chander Asthana challenged disciplinary actions, including findings of the Administrative Tribunal, with High Court involvement and governor’s order; the Court dismissed petitions and appeal. (!) - (!) The judgment discusses whether Art. 235 § High Court control over subordinate courts is violated by the disciplinary proceedings conducted via Administrative Tribunal under UP Rules; Court finds no necessity to examine this aspect in detail, and upholds the actions. (!) - (!) The High Court approved the Administrative Tribunal findings; material witnesses and evidence were detailed in the case, with conclusions upholding charges (including third charge: illegal gratification). (!) - (!) Inquiries were conducted under UP Rules; after amendment of Art. 311 by 42nd Amendment, the Explanation requiring service of copy of Tribunal report prior to amendment was dropped; hence failure to serve copy is immaterial. (!) - (!) In four joined cases, the Supreme Court dismisses petitions and appeals, upholding the findings and actions taken; no merit found. (!) - (!) The order of termination/reduction in rank and other disciplinary sanctions against the petitioners were sustained based on evidence and High Court approval. (!) - (!) The judgment emphasizes that the scope of writ petitions is limited and does not re-assess the evidence; High Court’s findings on charges were fully established. (!) - (!) The overall result: petitions and appeals dismissed; no costs awarded. (!)
Judgment
L. M. SHARMA, J. :- These four cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.
2. Kailash Chander Asthana, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 817 of 1980, was initially appointed as a Munsif Magistrate in Uttar Pradesh in 1969 and was promoted in 1974 as a Civil Judge. In 1975 an application for transfer of a case pending before him was made by the plaintiffs in the case inter alia on the ground that the writ petitioner had demanded bribe from plaintiff No. 2, Krishna Murari who had refused to oblige. The Allahabad High Court directed the Vigilance Bureau, which is under its control, to make a preliminary inquiry. After receipt of a report by the Bureau, the Administrative Committee of the High Court considered the matter and decided to get a full-fledged disciplinary inquiry to be made, on three charges, the Charge No. 3 being the demand of illegal gratification from Krishna Murari. The High Court also decided that the petitioner should be placed under suspension, and on receipt of a recommendation to that effect an order dated 23-3-1978 by the Governor was passed. In accordance with the direction of the High Court the inquiry was conducted by an Adm
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
