SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, CJI., L.M. SHARMA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.
Kailash Chander Asthana, Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 817 of 1980 with Civil Appeal No. 2523 of 1981 with Writ Petn. Nos. 3782 and 8253 of 1981, D/- 5-5-1988.
WITH
Ami Chand, Petitioner v. State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
AND
Ram Kumar Prajapati, Petitioner
Versus
High Court of Allahabad and others, Respondents.
Constitution of India – Article 235 – Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947 – Petitioner in Writ Petition, was initially appointed as a Munsif Magistrate in Uttar Pradesh in 1969 and was promoted 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, Krishna Murari who had refused to oblige – 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 being the demand of illegal gratification from Krishna Murari – High Court also decided that the petitioner should be placed under suspension, and on receipt of a recommendation to that effect an order by the Governor was passed –Held, Although many questions have been raised in the writ application in W.P.1, they were not pressed before us during the hearing of the case and it is not necessary, therefore, to examine the same – It was however, faintly suggested by Mr. Garg at one stage that in view of Art. 235 of the Constitution the inquiry by the Administrative Tribunal is vitiated in law and has to be annulled – Point has been discussed in great detail in the counter-affidavit indicating that the relevant provisions of the Rules do not in any way militate against the control of the High Court over the subordinate courts and all the steps against the petitioner were taken at the instance of the High Court, We do not, in the circumstances, consider it necessary to discuss this aspect in any detail – Petitions and appeal dismissed.
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 Administrative Tribunal framed under the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and the evidence of the witnesses examined was recorded. After completion of the inquiry the entire matter was placed before the High Court and it was considered by the Full Court of the High Court, which approved the findings of the Administrative Tribunal, holding the writ petitioner to be guilty of the third charge. The High Court, thereafter by its letter dated 18-12-1979 requested the Governor to remove the petitioner from service and the impugned order terminating the services of the writ petitioner was accordingly passed. The petitioner has challenged the order under Art. 32 of the Constitution by Writ Petition No. 817 of 1980. It is stated by Mr. R. K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in view of certain observations of this Court the writ petitioner also filed an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed in limine on 14-3-1981. The order is under challenge in Civil Appeal No. 2523 of 1981.
3. Ami Chand, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3782 of 1981, is also a Judicial Officer in Uttar Pradesh and has directly challenged the order dated 5-11-1980 reducing him in rank. A disciplinary proceeding was started against the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8253 of 1981 Ram Kumar Prajapati, Munsif Magistrate in Uttar Pradesh, on two charges, namely, those of bigamy and of forging and making use of a document with a view to support his false defence of separation from his first wife. The charges were found to be correct. On the first charge the petitioner was punished with stoppage of three increments for five years and on the second charge his services have been terminated, vide order dated 13-10-1981. He has challenged the order by Writ Petition No. 8253 of 1981.
4. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for petitioner Kailash Chander Asthana, contended that the finding recorded on the third charge is erroneous and should, therefore, be set aside. The finding is based on the evidence of three witnesses, namely, Krishna Murari, Plaintiff No. 2, Prakash Chandra Pandey, who is running a cloth shop by the side of the electric shop of Krishna Murari and Vishwanath Prasad, Krishna Muraris uncle. Krishna Murari has in his evidence supported the allegations and has given the details with regard to the illegal demand. Prakash Chandra Pandey stated that the officer, Sri Kailash Chander Asthana went to the shop when he (the witness) was talking to Krishna Murari and the two went inside the shop. Later, on inquiry the witness was informed about the incident. Vishwanath Prasad claimed that Krishna Murari had mentioned about the demand of bribery to him. All
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.