# (In Jail) v. District Magistrate, Aligarh. and others - **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 95 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2002-12-02 - **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 44364 of 2002 - **Bench:** M. Katju, Rakesh Tiwari - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/in-jail-v-district-magistrate-aligarh-and-others-40065 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India-Article 226dismissal order - a bank operates on public confidence and hence the highest degree of discipline and integrity and discipline is required from bank employees as compared to other employees, otherwise the public will lose confidence in the Bank and there may be a run on the bank to withdraw money. Sufficient compliance of natural justice (Held- para 14) We have perused the appellate order also and find no illegality in the same. The finding of fact has been recorded by both the authorities that the petitioner has embezzled the amount in question by passing farzi resolution which was a serious misconduct. In our opinion sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. As stated above the rules of natural justice are not a straight jacket formula and it all depends on the facts of each case whether the hearing was adequate or not. Case law referred- 1981 UPLBEC 393 AIR 1973 SC 1260 AIR 2001 SC 24 ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 1 All] Santosh Vs. District Magistrate, Agra and others 95 4. It appears that Km. Shashi was a dalit. There have been several incidents of rape and molestation of dalit women which adversely affects the public order. We do not agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that this is only a case of law and order. 5. In Arun Ghosh vs. State of West Bangal, AIR 1970 SC 1228 the Supreme Court observed: "The question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance of public order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon society. An act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. Similar acts in different context, affect differently law and order on the one had and public order on the other. It is always a question of degree of harm and its affect upon the community." 6. Learned counsels for the petitioner submitted that it a solitary incident but it is well settled that even on the basis of solitary incident a valid detention order can be passed vide David Patrick Ward vs. Union of India, J.T. 1992 (5) SC 163. In our opinion rape of a dalit girl of a tender age does affect public order. We find no merit in this petition and it is dismissed. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 2.12.2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 44364 of 2002 Bhura ...Petitioner (In Jail) Versus District Magistrate, Aligarh. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ramesh Sinha Counsel for the Respondents: Sri B.N.Singh Senior S.C. A.G.A. National Security Act-1980-Section 3 (2) - Detention order the detaining authority did not inform the petitioner that he has a right to make a representation to the detaining authority- the impugned detention order dated 28.8.2002 is quashed.(held in para 3). The petitioner has been informed that he can make a representation to the State Government, Central Government and the Advisory Board. However, it has not been stated that the petitioner was informed that he can also make a representation to the detaining authority. This petition is allowed. The impugned detention order dated 28.8.2002 is quashed. Case Law referred: 2000 (41) SCC 843 J.T. 2000 (41) ACC 704 (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned detention order http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 dated 28.8.2002 passed under the National Security Act vide Annexcure-1 to the writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Several arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner but this petition deserves to succeed on the very first ground, namely, that the detaining authority did not inform the petitioner that he has a right to make a representation to the detaining authority. This averment has been made in paragraph 9 and 10 of the writ petition. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner has been informed that he can make a representation to the State Government, Central Government and the Advisory Board. However, it has not been stated that the petitioner was informed that he can also make a representation to the detaining authority. Hence in view of the Division Bench decisions of this Court in Jai Prakash Shastri vs. Adhikshak, Janpad Karagar 2000 (41) SCC 843 and Vijai Kumar Misra vs. Superintendent, District Jail, 2002 Current Bail Cases 455 which have followed the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Santosh Shastri Acharya J.T. 2000 (41) ACC 704 this petition is allowed. The impugned detention order dated 28.8.2002 is quashed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith unless required in some other criminal or preventive detention case. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD NOV. 12, 2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22342 of 1999 Sankatha Prasad Singh ...Petitioner Versus Regional Administrative Committee and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.P. Gupta Counsel for the Respondents: Sri O.P. Singh Sri S.K. Rai Constitution of India-Article 226dismissal order - a bank operates on public confidence and hence the highest degree of discipline and integrity and discipline is required from bank employees as compared to other employees, otherwise the public will lose confidence in the Bank and there may be a run on the bank to withdraw money. Sufficient compliance of natural justice (Held- para 14) We have perused the appellate order also and find no illegality in the same. The finding of fact has been recorded by both the authorities that the petitioner has embezzled the amount in question by passing farzi resolution which was a serious misconduct. In our opinion sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. As stated above the rules of natural justice are not a straight jacket formula and it all depends on the facts of each case whether the hearing was adequate or not. Case law referred- 1981 UPLBEC 393 AIR 1973 SC 1260 AIR 2001 SC 24