Writ Petition (S) No. S62 of 2005 v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
(Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwal<er> Writ Petition (S) No. S62 of 2005 PETITIONER Nandkymar yersys RESPONDENTS State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Post for pronouncement of the judgment on .O^j.03.2012 Sd/- Pritmker Diwakar Judge '(^-1 .>.% fi ^..:s^' \^w HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition No.562 6f2005 Petitioner Nandkumar VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh and others Shri Pallav Mishra counselfor the petitioner. Shri N. NaHa Roy PL for the respondenVState. WRIT PETITIONUNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA O RD E R (O^i.t.2012) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 21.6.1991 (Annexure A-15) passed by Superintendent of Police Durg dismissing the petitioner from service who was holding the pbst of head constable after conducting departmental enquiry. Againstthe order dated 21.6.1991 the petitioner preferred an appeal before DIG, Raipurwhich also came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.9.1991 (Annexure A-17). Counsel for the petitioner submits that though various grounds have ,2. been raised by the petitioner in the petition but at this stage he is confining higargument to the sole point where the appellate authority i.e. DIG Raipur while deciding his appeal has not passed a speaking and reasoned order and the order dated 19.9.1991 has been passed in a mechanical manher. He submits that purpose of filing this petition would be served if the matter is remitted back to the DIG Raipur with a direction to decide the appeal afresh by a speaking and reasoned order dealing with all the points raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal (Annexure A-16). Counsel for the in the matter ot petitioner Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya relies on the decision of Supreme Court ei!l! fsw „..,..; ,.....(.^-, ij?'.,.'"4.. ' "l;li>..,^n<;!':" lf/ Gramln Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others reported in (2009)4 SCC 240.
State counsel however submits that the impugned order passed by DIG Raipur is strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same.
Considering the limited submission made by the petitioner 1 have perused the order dated 19.9.1991 passed by DIG, Raipur. From the said order it is apparent that while deciding the appeal of the petitioner DIG Raipur has not applied its mind and passed the order in a mechaniGal the legal points raised by the manner. The order further reflects that (Annexure A-16) have not been petitioner considered by the DIG. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in in the memo of appeal view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter of Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and others v. Madhusudhan Rao reported
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.