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

2021 Supreme(MP) 636

SANJAY DWIVEDI
M. L. Mittal – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates:
Ved Prakash Nema for petitioner; Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.

ORDER

1. This petition is heard finally.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is not challenging any specific order, but seeking a direction for issuance of writ of mandamus for the respondents to finalize his case of retiral dues and be paid to him expeditiously.

3. The crisp and short facts of the case are that the petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation stood retired from service on 30.11.2001, but on the date of retirement, since the petitioner was facing a criminal trial i.e. Special Case No.12/1997 in connection with Crime No.122/1996 for an offence under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2), section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code registered against the petitioner, therefore, his retiral dues could not be finalized. However, the trial Court vide order dated 5.11.2004 (Annexure-P/7), acquitted the petitioner from the charge levelled against him. Thereafter, against the said order of acquittal, the State preferred an appeal before the High Court which got registered as Criminal Appeal No.842/2005 [The State of M.P. v. Madan

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