DIPANKAR DATTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
State of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow – Appellant
Versus
Ram Prakash Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
THE CHALLENGE
1. The challenge in this appeal, by special leave, is to a judgment and order dated 19th October, 20191[impugned order] of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad2[High Court]. It is laid by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the unsuccessful writ petitioner3[appellant]. The impugned order dismissed the writ petition4[Writ Petition (S/B) No. 28859/2019] of the appellant, wherein the final order of the Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal5[Tribunal] dated 19th November, 2018 was under challenge. The Tribunal set aside the order of punishment dated 24th March, 2015 imposing a penalty of Rs. 10.25 lakh along with a 5% reduction in pension for five years on Ram Prakash Singh6[Respondent].
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The facts of the case are of great significance given the key arguments advanced by the parties. Hence, we find it appropriate to briefly narrate the events having a bearing on our decision before proceeding to examine the merits of the rival claims. The vital facts, as culled out from the records, to decide the appeal are as follows:
II. Acco
M/s. Bareilly Electricity Supply Company Limited v. The Workmen and Others
Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha
Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and Another
Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja
Union of India v. Bishamber Das Dogra
Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank v. Manoj Kumar Sinha
Punjab National Bank v. K.K. Verma
Union of India and Others v. Dilip Paul
Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE
Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital & Dental College v. Union of India
Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala
Mineral Area Development Authority of India & Anr. v. Steel Authority of India & Anr.
T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr.
State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh
Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi)
State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma
Kailash Chander Asthana v. State of U.P.
Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
Union of India and Others v. Satyendra Kumar Sahai and Another
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.