SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Pat) 207

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
Dineshwar Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner: M/s Prashant Sinha, Ram Binod Singh.
For the Respondents: Mr. Pratik Kr. Sinha, AC to GA-5.

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner, in the present writ application, is questioning the order dated 07.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority in Service Appeal No. 45/2017 whereby and whereunder the appellate authority has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner and refused to interfere with the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service as contained in Memo No. 2107 dated 04.11.2016 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Saran (Respondent no. 3).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested by a team of Vigilance Investigation Bureau while allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs. 2000/- from the complainant Sri Madan Mahto. A case being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 68/2009 dated 12.06.2009 under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was lodged against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel submits that later on a chargesheet in “Prapatra Ka” was served upon the petitioner. A copy of the same has been brought on record as Annexure ‘3’ to the writ application.

5. Learned counsel submits that on service of cha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top