Disposed

Kameshwar Singh v. The Food Corporation Of India and Ors.

Patna HC9 Apr 2013CWJC/21111/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition against compulsory retirement and monetary recovery, ruling that an alternative remedy of appeal was available. Liberty was granted to seek condonation of delay in the appeal if time-barred, ensuring merits would be heard without prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; liberty granted for condonation of delay in appeal if time-barred.

Kameshwar Singh Vs The Food Corporation Of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21111 of 2012

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Kameshwar Singh Son of Late Ram Singasan Singh, Resident of Village - Basauri, Via - Piro, P.S. - Sikrahta, District - Bhojpur

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The Food Corporation of India through its Managing Director, Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi

¶7

1. Executive Director (East Zone) Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (East) Kolkata

¶8

1. General Manager (R), Food Corporation of India, Exhibition Road, Patna

¶9

1. Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office, Exhibition Road, Patna

¶10

1. Manager (D) Food Corporation Of India, Food Storage Depo, Buxar

¶11

.... .... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiv Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K.Verma, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Nand Kumar Singh, & Dr. Mankeshwar Tiwari, Advocates.

¶13

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶14

5 09-04-2013 Heard the parties.

¶15

By the impugned order dated 26.03.2012 (Annexure-7), passed by the General Manager (R) of the respondent Corporation (Respondent No.3), on the basis of findings recorded in a disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner has been visited with the penalty of compulsory retirement from service and recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lacs).

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. However, he is not disputing that the order impugned is appealable and the appeal does lie before a prescribed appellate authority.

¶17

In view of the fact that the petitioner has an alternative

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.21111 of 2012 (5) dt.09-04-2013

¶19

2/2

¶20

remedy of appeal, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction at this stage.

¶21

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of at this stage with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the prescribed appellate authority.

¶22

If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner and if it is found that his appeal has become time barred, and if any prayer is made by the petitioner for condonation of delay, then the learned appellate authority shall take into consideration that on a bonafide legal advise the present writ petition was filed before this Court on 07.11.2012 and it remained pending before this Court till date, and thereafter the appellate authority shall consider and decide the prayer of the petitioner for condonation of delay.

¶23

If delay is condoned, then the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner, shall be heard and decided on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order, by which this Court has declined to entertain this writ petition at this stage on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of appeal.

¶24

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

¶25

BTiwary/-

Kameshwar Singh v. The Food Corporation Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kameshwar Singh v. The Food Corporation Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandradeo Poddar Vs the Bihar State Copt.Land Devp

Chandrakant Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Pravin Chandra Vs Patna Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Jagat Narayan Prasad Vs the Bihar State Electricity Bo

Anirudh Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Amrendra Kumar Anand Vs The Union Of India and Ors.