# Ashok Kumar Tiwari & others v. State of U.P. & another

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 638
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-07-30
- **Bench:** Vinod Prasad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-kumar-tiwari-others-v-state-of-u-p-another-41066
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-482quashing
of
criminal
proceedings-on
2 All] Ashok Kumar Tiwari and others V. State of U.P. and another
639
ground
of
two
F.I.R.
for
same
occurrence-offence under section 498-A,
394-B, 201 I.P.C. read with 3⁄4 Dowry
Prohibition Act-first F.I.R alleged to be
lodged by the son of the father of
deceased in very casual manner without
disclosing
the
time
and
place
of
occurrence, even the name of witness
not mentioned-strongly disputed the
signature of informant of first F.I.R.-no
denial-subsequent F.I.R. with correct
version cannot be treated as second
F.I.R.-held-cannot be touched at this
stage-direction issued for trial of both
cases by the same Judge in accordance
with law.

Held: Para 22 & 23

More over, on the facts of the present
case T.T. Antony's case (supra) does not
apply at all as second FlR was registered
after the investigation on the earlier FlR,
which was alleged to be manufactured
and shame document was already over.
The grievance in the present case by the
father of the deceased is that the police
in connivance with the accused, and to
save them from the clutches of law,
registered a FlR in the name of his son
which was not lodged by his son at all.
By
no
stretch
of
logic
can
such
allegations be treated to be a second
FIR.

The contention of the learned counsel for
the applicants regarding the registration
of second FIR in the back drop of above
discussion is bereft of any merit and is
hereby repelled.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 2001 SC 2637

## Text

638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
and purpose of the statute have to be
given effect to. The object of Government
Order is to give preference to persons of
Machhua Community and Scheduled
Caste. The preferences are divided in
three categories i.e. category-1, category2, category-3. All category has three sub
categories. In case, submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner is accepted that
a person belonging to Scheduled Caste
belonging to same village, has to be
preferred to ,a person of Machhua
Community
and
belonging
to
the
concerned Block, the Government Order
would have included category 2(a) in first
category itself and all the persons and
Cooperative
Societies
of
concerned
village should have been included in
category 1 and the category would have
been thus:
1(a) persons belonging to Machhua
Community of concerned village.
(b) Schedule Caste of concerned village.
(c) Cooperative Society of members of
Machhua
Community
of
concerned
village.
(d) Cooperative Society of Schedule
Caste persons of concerned village.

17. A perusal of Government Order
indicates that the different categories have
been mentioned according to preference
and from paragraph 3 of Government
Order, it is clear that the settlement has to
be
undertaken
in
accordance
with
prescribed
preference.
In
case,
the
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner is accepted, the preferential
category have to be re-written.

18. Paragraph 5(1) at best can be
read as proviso to the preferences as
indicated in the Government Order. A
proviso is normally not construed as
nullifying the enactment or as taking
away completely a right conferred by the
enactment. Thus, paragraph 5(1) cannot
be construed as changing the preferences
as mentioned in the Government Order.
Persons
belonging
to
Machhua
Community be that of (a) same village
concerned (b) concerned Nyaya Panchyat
or concerned Block are in the first
category and they will take precedence
over a member of Schedule Caste who is
in second category, thus, the petitioner
who belongs to Schedule Caste, cannot be
preferred to a person belonging to
Machhua
Community
although
of
concerned Block. Thus the submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that
respondent No. 5 could not have been
given preference over the petitioner,
cannot be accepted.

19. In view of the foregoing
discussions, the petitioner is not entitled
for any relief in this writ petition. The
writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.07.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.

Criminal Misc. Application 18374 of 2008

Ashok Kumar Tiwari & others ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & another...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri. Satish Trivedi
Sri. Lalit Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-482quashing
of
criminal
proceedings-on
2 All] Ashok Kumar Tiwari and others V. State of U.P. and another
639
ground
of
two
F.I.R.
for
same
occurrence-offence under section 498-A,
394-B, 201 I.P.C. read with 3⁄4 Dowry
Prohibition Act-first F.I.R alleged to be
lodged by the son of the father of
deceased in very casual manner without
disclosing
the
time
and
place
of
occurrence, even the name of witness
not mentioned-strongly disputed the
signature of informant of first F.I.R.-no
denial-subsequent F.I.R. with correct
version cannot be treated as second
F.I.R.-held-cannot be touched at this
stage-direction issued for trial of both
cases by the same Judge in accordance
with law.

Held: Para 22 & 23

More over, on the facts of the present
case T.T. Antony's case (supra) does not
apply at all as second FlR was registered
after the investigation on the earlier FlR,
which was alleged to be manufactured
and shame document was already over.
The grievance in the present case by the
father of the deceased is that the police
in connivance with the accused, and to
save them from the clutches of law,
registered a FlR in the name of his son
which was not lodged by his son at all.
By
no
stretch
of
logic
can
such
allegations be treated to be a second
FIR.

The contention of the learned counsel for
the applicants regarding the registration
of second FIR in the back drop of above
discussion is bereft of any merit and is
hereby repelled.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 2001 SC 2637

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.)

1. A family of Dina Nath Tiwari
consisting of himself, his wife Smt. Ram
Dulari, son Ashok Kumar Tiwari along
with Smt. Nirmala w/o Bharat Tiwari
have invoked my inherent jurisdiction
with the prayer that entire proceedings of
Case No. 574 of 2008, State versus Ashok
Kumar Tiwari and others arising out of
Crime No. C-131/2007, u/s 498A, 304-B
and 201 of IPC and section 3⁄4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, P.S. Sahatwar, district
Ballia, pending in the court of Judicial
Magistrate 1st , Ballia be quashed. The
ancillary prayer is to stay further
proceedings
of
the
aforesaid
case
pendentlite.

2. The back ground facts are that
Reena
Tiwari
d/o
informant
Prem
Shanker Tiwari respondent no. 2 was
married with Ashok Kumar Tiwari
applicant no. 1 s/o Dina Nath Tiwari and
Smt. Ram Dulari applicants no. 2 and 3.
Reena Tiwari however, was murdered and
in respect of her death, her brother
Krishna Kant Tiwari s/o respondent no. 2
Prem Shanker Tiwari lodged a FI R as
Crime No. 149 of 2005, u/s 302/201 IPC
at P.S. Sahatwar, district Ballia on
24.11.2005
at
about
1.50
p.m.,
mentioning there in that his sister was
married with Ashok Kumar Tiwari s/o
Dina Nath Tiwari and for the reasons
unknown, Bharat Tiwari, brother of
Ashok Kumar Tiwari has burnt the
deceased to death after murdering her.

3. It transpires that on the basis of
the registered FIR, annexure no. 1,
investigation was taken up by the I.O.,
who concluded the same and submitted
charge sheet No.5 of 2006 in the court on
20.1.2006 for the offences u/s 306/201
IPC against Bharat Tiwari, Madhuvan
Yadav and Prabhawati. On the basis of
the said charge sheet, annexure 2
cognizance was taken by the Magistrate
and the accused were summoned. Their
case was committed to the court of
Sessions and Sessions Trial No. 124/07
was registered in the Court of Sessions
640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
Judge, Ballia vide annexure 3 A to this
application.

4. It seems that respondent no. 2
Prem
Shanker
Tiwari
moved
an
application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. against
the present applicants along with Bharat
Tiwari, Smt. Nirmla and Prabhawati Devi
with the prayer to direct the police to
register his F.I.R. and investigate the
offences of 498-A 304-B IPC and 3⁄4 D.P.
Act. It is pertinent to mention here that
Prabhawati and Bharat Tiwari were
charge sheeted accused for the offences
u/s 306/201 IPC vide annexure 2 as has
already been mentioned above.

5. The allegations, which were
levelled by respondent no. 2 in his
application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. were that
he had married his daughter Reena,
according to Hindu customs and rites with
Ashok Kumar Tiwari s/o Dina Nath
Tiwari on 1.5.2004. Soon after the
marriage the husband, father-in-law and
mother-in-law along with Jeth Bharat
Tiwari and his wife started demanding Rs.
50,000/- cash, a Fridge and a Maruti Car
from his daughter and started torturing her
for non fulfilment of the same. For
making the life of his daughter happy,
respondent no. 2 parted with the Rs. 50,
000/-, so that the torture of his daughter
comes to an end but the act resulted in
aggravation of torture of his daughter for
demand of a Fridge and a Maruti Car.
When the informant came to know of it,
he sent his son Krishna Kant on
17.11.2005 for bringing back his daughter
but the applicants did not send her back.
His daughter Reena was assaulted in the
presence of her brother as well.

6. On 18.11.2005 Krishna Kant
informed the respondent No. 2 regarding
torture and assault on Reena on telephone,
on which the informant asked him to take
respectable persons along with him and
bring back Reena. Thereafter when
Krishna Kant had gone to bring back
Reena, then he found that Reena was
murdered and cremated. Krishna Kant
informed regarding the said murder to
Prem Shanker Tiwari on telephone who
came to district Ballia and endeavoured to
lodge his report but his report was not
taken down. On the contrary the I.O.
started
pressurising
him
for
a
compromise. A written application was
dispatched by Prem Shanker Tiwari to
Superintendent of Police, Ballia but invain. According to the version of the
informant, the police, to save the accused
from rigour of punishment, in connivance
with the accused, registered a FIR on their
own in the name of Krishna Kant Tiwari
son of respondent no. 2 ostensibly to save
the accused from offences committed by
them and it was asserted by respondent
no. 2 that his son never lodged any F.I.R.
at P .S. Sahatwar. It was further
mentioned that even at the time of
marriage of Reena, the accused had
demanded Hero Honda Splendor Motor
Cycle which was given in dowry by the
informant respondent no. 2.

7. With the aforesaid allegations
respondent no. 2 prayed to the Magistrate
vide his application dated 4.1.2006 to
direct the police to register the F.I.R. and
investigate the offence. His application
u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. is annexure No.4.

8. Vide order dated 23.1.2006, the
Magistrate rejected the said application
recording in his order that the F.I.R.
lodged by Krishna Kant Tiwari as Crime
No. 149/05, u/s 302/201 IPC was
registered at the Police Station Sahatwar,
2 All] Ashok Kumar Tiwari and others V. State of U.P. and another
641
which crime was investigated and charge
sheet was submitted u/s 306/201 IPC.
Learned
Magistrate
relied
upon
a
judgment of the apex court in T.T.
Antony's
case
and
rejected
the
application of the applicant u/s 156 (3) Cr.
P .C. observing that the second F.I.R.
cannot be registered at the instant of
respondent No. 2 as the earlier F.I.R. was
already registered.

9.

Order
of
rejection
dated
23.1.2006 of the application u/s 156 (3)
Cr. P.C. was challenged in Criminal
Revision No. 24/06 unsuccessfully by
respondent no. 2 where in his revision
was dismissed vide order dated 8.2.2007
passed
by
Special
Judge/Additional
Sessions Judge Court No.7, Ballia vide
annexure 6 to this application.

10. According to the case of the
applicants both the aforesaid rejection
orders were challenged before this court
in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
2680/07, which was allowed and both the
orders passed by Magistrate as well as by
learned Additional Sessions Judge dated
23.1.2006 and 8.2.2007 respectively were
set aside and the matter was remanded
back for fresh decision on the application
of respondent no. 2 u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C.

11. It was after the remand that on
17.4.2007, the Magistrate ordered for
registration of F.I. R and investigation and
hence crime No. C-131/07 was registered
against the present applicants u/s 498-A,
304-B and 201 IPC and section 3⁄4 D.P.
Act at P.S. Sahatwar, district Ballia vide
annexure no. 7 to this application.

12. Follow up investigation resulted
in filing of Charge Sheet No. 5 A/08
against the applicants in the court of
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Ballia, on the basis
of which Case No. 574/08 State versus
Ashok Kumar Tiwari and others was
registered in the Court of J.M. 1st Ballia
for the aforesaid offences.

13. It is on back ground of the above
facts that the four applicants who are
husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and
sister-in-law (Bhabhi) have filed the
instant Criminal Misc. Application with
the prayer that entire proceedings of the
subsequent registered case No. 574/08
State versus Ashok Kumar Tiwari and
others for causing dowry death and
offence under dowry prohibition Act be
quashed.

14. I have heard Sri Satish Trivedi,
learned Senior Counsel in support of this
application
and
learned
AGA
in
opposition.

15. Sri Satish Trivedi learned Senior
Counsel raised no new argument but
confined himself on the same contention
that second F.I.R. cannot be registered,
therefore,
the
prosecution
of
the
applicants
be
quashed.
He
further
submitted that at least two of the
applicants Prabhawati and Bharat Tiwari
were already charge sheeted accused and
therefore, the second F.I.R. against them
is bad in law. He further contended that so
far as these two accused persons are
concerned, it will be difficult for them to
defend themselves for the charges which
are opposite in nature and therefore there
is likely hood of recording of conflicting
findings in both the trials. Sri Trivedi also
relied upon on the judgment of the apex
court in T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerla
and others A.I.R. 2001 SC 2637.
642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008

16. Learned AGA on the contrary,
refuted all the contentions raised by Sri
Satish
Trivedi
and
submitted
that
alternative charge can always be framed
and whether it was a case of abatement of
suicide or murder because of rapacity can
be decided only at the stage of trial. It is
further contended that the deceased was
murdered within a very short span of time
and there is nothing on record to suggest
that she was inclined to commit suicide
and
therefore,
earlier
charge
sheet
submitted by the police was wholly dis
satisfactory. Learned AGA also submitted
that it is not a case of registering of
second F.I.R but it is a case of bringing
out new version by the father of the
deceased, who had lost his daughter in
prime of her youth. Concludingly, learned
AGA contended that this application is
bereft of merit and T.T. Antony's case
(supra) does not apply at all and this
application deserves to be rejected

17.

I
have
considered
the
contentions of rival sides and have gone
through various annexures appended
along with this application. I have also
gone through the judgment of the apex
court in T.T. Antony's case (supra).

18. From the material placed on the
record of this case, it is absolutely
c1ear,which has not been rebuted by the
learned counsel for the applicant, that the
case of the father Prem Shankar Tiwari
respondent no. 2 is that no FIR was
lodged by his son Krishna Kant Tiwari
with the allegations of murder and the
police on its own registered FIR by
impersonation in the name of Krishna
Kant
Tiwari.
This
allegation
by
respondent no. 2 has to be taken to be
correct on its fact value. The applicants
have not been able to show any thing on
the basis of which it can be said that the
said allegation levelled by the present
informant is false. In such a view, there
does not arise any question of lodging of
second FIR as according to the case of the
informant registration of the first FI R is
fictitious and that is a shame document.
Further it transpires that the allegations
levelled by the present informant, the
father is that the accused have committed
dowry death. The earlier FIR, which has
been appended as annexure No. 1 to this
application speaks volume in itself. The
said FIR does not contain any thing but
for a very cursory narration of fact
without disclosing the time and even the
date of the incident, name of any witness
etc. It transpires that the allegations of the
present informant that his son had not
lodged any FIR seems to be more
probable.

19. Further, offence u/s 306 IPC is
materially different from the offence u/s
304 -B IPC, so far as registration of FIR is
concerned. Under section 154 Cr.P.C.,
what is to be registered is the information
relating the commission of cognizable
offence.
In
this
back
ground
the
contention of learned Senior Counsel for
the applicants has to be analysed.

20. Cogitating over the submissions
it is clear that if two persons give
information regarding commission of two
different offences which are cognizable in
nature, may be in respect of the same
incident, then the FIR of both the versions
have to be registered. It will be the matter
of investigation to investigate which
version is correct. But so far as
registration of FIR is concerned, the same
cannot be denied for the reasons that the
incident is one. For registration of FIR
what
is
important
is
information
2 All] Ashok Kumar Tiwari and others V. State of U.P. and another
643
disclosing particular offence and not the
incident. Under Section 154 Cr. P.C. it is
no where mentioned that in respect of a
single incident, no two FIRs can be
registered even if the version given by
both
the
informants
are
materially
different and they disclosing different
kind of offence as is the case here. There
is another aspect of the matter, which
requires consideration at this stage and
that is that if one version given by the
informant is not registered then his case
will be closed for ever even before it is
investigated. This is not the intention of
the
legislature
in
enacting
under
section154 Cr. P.C. Even in T.T.
Antony's case (supra) while deliberating
on the said aspect of the matter the apex
court has observed that any cryptic
information cannot be registered as FIR.
It has further been observed by the apex
court that any statements recorded during
the investigation of cognizable offence
disclosing
commission
of
other
cognizable offence will only be a
statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. and any such
disclosure during investigation can not be
treated to be a FIR. The apex court has
observed in the aforesaid decision as
follows:-

19. An information given under subsection (1) of Section 154 of Cr. P. C. is
commonly known as First Information
Report (FIR) though this term is not
used in the Code. It is very important
document. And as its nick name suggests
it is the earliest and the first information
of a cognizable offence recorded by an
officer-in-charge of a police station. It
sets the criminal law into motion and
marks
the
commencement
of
the
investigation which ends up with the
formation of opinion under Sections 169
or 170 of Cr. P.C., as the case may be,
and forwarding of a police report under
Section 173 of Cr. P. C. It is quite
possible and it happens not infrequently
that more informations than one are
given to a police officer-in-charge of a
police station in respect of the same
incident involving one or more than one
cognizable offences. In such a case he
need not enter everyone of them in the
station house diary and this is implied in
Section 154 of Cr. P. C., apart from a
vague information by a phone call or
cryptic telegram, the information first
entered in the station house diary, kept
for this purpose, by a police officer-incharge of police station is the First
Information Report -FIR postulated by
Section 154 Cr. P. C. All other
information made orally or in writing
after
the
commencement
of
the
investigation into the cognizable offence
disclosed from the facts mentioned in the
First Information Report and entered in
the station house diary by the police
officer or such other cognizable offences
as may come to his notice during the
investigation, will be statements falling
under Section 162 of Cr. P.C. No such
information/statement can properly be
treated as an FIR and entered in the
station house diary again, as it would in
effect be a second FIR and the same
cannot be in conformity with the scheme
of the Cr. P.C. Take a case where an
FIR mentions cognizable offence under
Sections 307 or 326 IPC, and the
investigating agency learns during the
investigation
or
receives
a
fresh
information that the victim died, no fresh
FIR under Section 302 IPC need be
registered which will be irregular, in
such a case alteration of the provision of
law in the first FIR is the proper course
to adopt. Let us consider a different
situation in which H having killed W his
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
wife, informs the police that she is killed
by an unknown person or knowing that
W is killed by his mother or sister, H
owns up the responsibility and during
investigation the truth is detected; it does
not require filing of fresh FIR against H
the real offender-who can be arraigned
in the report under Section 173 (2) or
173 (8) of Cr. P. C., as the case may be.
It is of course permissible for the
investigating officer to send up a report
to the concerned Magistrate even earlier
that investigation is being directed
against the person suspected to be the
accused.
19. The scheme of the Cr. P.C. is that an
officer-in-charge of a Police Station has
to commence investigation as provided in
Section 156 or 157 of Cr. P.C. on the
basis of entry of the First Information
Report, on coming to know of the
commission of a cognizable offence. On
completion of investigation and on the
basis of evidence collected he has to
form opinion under Section 169 or 170
of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and
forward his report to the concerned
Magistrate under Section 173 (2) of
Cr.P.C. However, even after filing such a
report if he comes into possession of
further information or material, he need
not
register
a
fresh
FIR,
he
is
empowered
to
make
further
investigation, normally with the leave of
the Court, and where during further
investigation
he
collects
further
evidence, oral or documentary, he is
obliged to forward the same with one or
more further reports; this is the import
of sub-section (8) of section 173 Cr.P.C"

21. Thus what has been prohibited
by the apex court is the registration of two
FlRs for the same offences. It however,
does not preclude from lodging of two
FlRs in respect of the same incident
having materially different allegations of
commission
of
different
cognizable
offences as is the present case.

22. More over, on the facts of the
present case T.T. Antony's case (supra)
does not apply at all as second FlR was
registered after the investigation on the
earlier FlR, which was alleged to be
manufactured and shame document was
already over. The grievance in the present
case by the father of the deceased is that
the police in connivance with the accused,
and to save them from the clutches of law,
registered a FlR in the name of his son
which was not lodged by his son at all. By
no stretch of logic can such allegations be
treated to be a second FIR.

23. The contention of the learned
counsel for the applicants regarding the
registration of second FIR in the back
drop of above discussion is bereft of any
merit and is hereby repelled.

24. For obliterating the anxiety of
learned
counsel
for
the
applicants
regarding recording of the conflicting
findings, it is desirable that both the trials
should be conducted by the same court,
which is hereby directed.

25. Another submission of the
learned
counsel
for
the
applicants
regarding defence of the accused, only
this much is observed that the said
contention is wholly meritless and bereft
of any reasoning what so ever and hence
is repelled.

26. While concluding the argument
learned counsel for the applicants made
oral request that in case the proceedings
of the aforesaid case No. 574/08 State
2 All] U.P.S.R.T.C. V. The State of U.P. and others
645
versus Ashok Kumar Tiwari and others,
Crime No. C-131/07, u/s 498-A, 304-B
and 201 IPC and section 3⁄4 D.P. Act, P.S.
Sahatwar, district Ballia is not quashed,
then the bail prayer of the applicants be
directed to be considered if possible on
the same day.

27. Looking to the facts of the case,
I hereby direct that in case the applicants
appears before the court concerned and
move an application for their bail, the
same is directed to be considered as
expeditiously
as
possible
without
unreasonable delay and in the case of lady
applicants the bail prayer shall be
considered if possible on the same day

28. With the aforesaid direction this
application stands dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.07.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition 19305 of 1988

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation

...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & others...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri. Sameer Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.
U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section
6-B(2)-Compromise between workman
and
employer-outside
the
Court-not
registered-objection by the employer
that
acting
upon
the
terms
of
compromise workman was reinstated
with condition he will not claim past
wages-held-misconceived-unregistered
compromise-not enforceable.

Held: Para 19

In my opinion, the Labour Court has
rightly allowed the application of the
workman under Section 33-C(2) of the
Act holding that such an agreement out
side the conciliation proceedings is not
enforceable in law in State of U.P.
without it being registered under the
provisions of Section 6-B (2) of the U. P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It appears
that the workman was reinstated in
service in terms of the award and not in
terms of the agreement.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

2. Respondent no.3 was appointed as
Carpenter on temporary post on 2.6.1977
in Gorakhpur Region. Subsequently on
26.7.1978 he was transferred from Bird
Ghat Depot, Gorakhpur Region to Dohri
Ghat Depot of Azamgarh Depot. He was
placed under suspension by order dated
28.7.1978 on misconduct and a charge
sheet dated 2.8.1978 was also issued to
the
petitioner.
After
enquiry
the
authorities reinstated the workman in
service with warning and forfeiture of
salary for suspension period except for
suspension allowance by an order dated
16.11. 1978.

3. On 19.12.1979 a report was
submitted by Sri Hardeo Ram, Chaukidar
that he caught the workman along with
Sri Dudh Nath Carpenter carrying 11
aluminum foils weighing 2-3 kgs. The
workman was placed under suspension by
an order dated 2.1.1980 and a chargesheet
dated 29.1.1980 was also served on him.