Disposed

Lal Bahadur Ram v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC5 Aug 2010CWJC/1817/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ challenging excessive quantum of departmental punishment for signing an affidavit by mistake. Court directed authorities to consider representation on quantum within six weeks before disposing application.

What did the court decide?

Authorities directed to consider petitioner's representation on quantum of punishment and dispose by reasoned order within six weeks.

Lal Bahadur Ram Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

CWJC No.1817 of 2010

¶3

LAL BAHADUR RAM S/O LATE JADU RAM R/O

¶4

SRINAGAR,P.S.SIWAN MUFASSIL, DISTT-SIWAN

¶5

Versus

¶6

THE STATE OF BIHAR

¶7

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME (SPECIAL )DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA

¶8

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

¶9

CABINET(VIGILANCE)DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA

¶10

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE -CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA

¶11

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ,HEADQUARTER BIHAR,PATNA

¶12

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL , SPECIAL VIGILANCE UNIT ,PATNA CUM INQUIRY OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY

¶13

THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶14

,CABINET(VIGILANCE)DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA

¶15

THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL

¶16

,CABINET(VIGILANCE)DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA

¶17

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

¶18

CABINET(VIGILANCE)DEPARTMENT ,GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA

¶19

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HOME (SPECIAL )DEPARTMENT null GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA

¶20

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HOME (POLICE)DEPARTMENT null GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA

¶21

----------2. 5.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶22

the State.

¶23

The only submission made on behalf of the

¶24

petitioner is that the charge in the Departmental proceeding was that he had sworn a wrong affidavit with the intention to aid the accused in the trial. The finding of the enquiry officer is that the petitioner had signed the affidavit which is admitted by him but the finding also is that it was a bona fide mistake not done intentionally.

¶25

¶26

The punishment imposed is stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and that during the period of suspension nothing beyond substance allowance shall be payable.

¶27

Learned counsel submits that in view of the nature of the finding of the enquiry officer the punishment is excessive and therefore the petitioner proposes to represent on the issue of quantum of punishment only.

¶28

Counsel for the State rightly submits that the quantification of the punishment is the prerogative of an

¶29

employee.

¶30

If the petitioner represents on the issue of quantum of punishment only, let the respondents consider the same and dispose it off by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of such representation with copy of such order.

¶31

The writ application stands disposed.

¶32

P. Kumar

¶33

(Navin Sinha, J.)

Lal Bahadur Ram v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Bahadur Ram v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Kumar Das Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Jagjeet Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Yogendra Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Anita Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ranjeet Kumar Singh Vs the Magadh University and Ors.