# Ram Das Dohrey and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 3 ILRA 954
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-08-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12533 of 2008
- **Bench:** Barkat Ali Zaidi, V.K. Verma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-das-dohrey-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41281
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Quashing
of
F.I.R.-petitioners
Bank
authorityallegation of unlock of locker burgling of
jewellery of worth Rs.20 lacs-can not be
said that no offence made out-helddefalcation of Bank-seeking confidence
of general public-if Bank unsafe where
people go-No interference called for
keeping in view of the verdict of the
Apex Court-petition dismissed.

Held: Para 11

The defalcation by the Bank employees
should be deemed unpardonable, since it
undermines,
the
confidence
of
the
populace in financial institutions. If they
feel Banks are unsafe where the people
shall keep their money? It will create
confusion and disruption in society, and
any lenience, in such mattes will be
wholly misplaced.
Case law discussed:
2007 (2) Supreme 661 decided on 27.2.2007

## Text

954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1.

The
petitioner
claims
compassionate appointment on the ground
that his wife who was appointed as
Shiksha Mitra for the Session 2002-03
and
continued
thereafter,
died
on
22.05.2008 and after her death the
petitioner has moved an application
seeking compassionate appointment but
neither any decision has been taken
thereafter nor he has been provided
compassionate
appointment.
He,
therefore, prayed that this application be
directed to be decided by the respondent
no. 4.

2. However, in my view, the writ
petition is thoroughly misconceived and,
therefore, there is no question of directing
the respondent no. 4 to decide the
aforesaid application of petitioner. It is
not disputed by the petitioner that there is
no provision either statutory or otherwise
providing
for
any
scheme
of
compassionate appointment to the heirs of
the person who died while working as
Shiksha Mitra. It is well settled, if there is
no scheme for providing compassionate
appointment the same cannot be claimed
or granted as held by the Apex Court in
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Vs. Devki Devi and others, 2006(5) SCC
523 and the same has been followed in the
case of State Bank of India Vs. Somvir
Singh, JT 2007 (3) 398 wherein the Apex
Court held as under:

"There is no right whatsoever nature
to claim compassionate appointment on
any ground other than one, if any,
conferred by the employer by way of
scheme or instructions as the case may
be."

3. In the absence of any such
scheme available for the heirs of the
Shiksha Mitra the claim of petitioner is
thoroughly
misconceived.
Moreover,
there is another aspect of the matter. The
appointment of Shiksha Mitra is made on
tenure basis for a particular session. The
wife of petitioner has died on 22.05.2008
and for the Session 2008-09 she has no
legal
right
to
continue
except
of
consideration of her case for renewal on
the basis of her past performance
otherwise the post is liable to be filled in
by fresh selection. In such kind of
appointment normally the claim of
compassionate
appointment
is
not
attracted.

4. In view of above, it is evident that
the petitioner has no personal right to
continue on the post of Shiksha Mitra and
hence also the concept of compassionate
appointment could not affect to such kind
of appointment.

5. The writ petition, therefore, lacks
merit and is accordingly dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI, J.
THE HON'BLE V.K. VERMA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12533 of
2008

Ram Das Dohrey and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Dr. Arun Srivastava
3 All] Ram Das Dohrey and others V. State of U.P. and others
955
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Shamshuddin Ahmad
A.G.A.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Quashing
of
F.I.R.-petitioners
Bank
authorityallegation of unlock of locker burgling of
jewellery of worth Rs.20 lacs-can not be
said that no offence made out-helddefalcation of Bank-seeking confidence
of general public-if Bank unsafe where
people go-No interference called for
keeping in view of the verdict of the
Apex Court-petition dismissed.

Held: Para 11

The defalcation by the Bank employees
should be deemed unpardonable, since it
undermines,
the
confidence
of
the
populace in financial institutions. If they
feel Banks are unsafe where the people
shall keep their money? It will create
confusion and disruption in society, and
any lenience, in such mattes will be
wholly misplaced.
Case law discussed:
2007 (2) Supreme 661 decided on 27.2.2007

(Delivered by Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi J.)

1. Spiralling crime has reached the
portals of the Bank. A mother and her
daughter in Budaun City found her locker
in the Bank of Baroda, Raees Market
Branch, Budaun unlocked and burgled. It
contained jewellery worth round 20 lacs.

2. The three bank officials, who are
said to have been responsible for the same
have been named in the First Information
Report.

3. These three Bank officials have
come to this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking to quash
the First Information Report lodged
against them in this regard under section
406,506 I.P.C. at P.S. Kotwali There is
also an interim prayer for the authorities
being restrained from arresting them.

4. We have heard Dr. Arun
Srivastava, Advocate, counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Shamshuddin Ahmad,
Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

5. The petition is liable to dismissal
in limine, because, the Supreme Court has
unequivocally pronounced in a number of
cases that a First Information Report can
be quashed, only, when no offence is
spelled out from the contents of the First
Information Report. Reference in this
connection may be made of the case T.
Vengara Naidu versus Dora Swami
Naidu and others, 2007 (2) Supreme 661
decided on 27.2.2007.

6. On the basis of the allegations
contained in the First Information Report,
it cannot be said that no offence is made
out against the accused.

7. One of the contentions of the
counsel for the petitioners is that the
mother would have removed the jewellery
earlier from the locker. That is, however,
a matter which will be a subject of
investigation, and no presumption can be
raised at this stage.

8. The other argument of the counsel
for the petitioners is that no offence under
sections 406, 504 Indian Penal Code is
made out. No reason in the petition has
been given, as to why, these offences are
not made out. When there is an allegation
of jewellery missing from the locker, a
prima-facie offence is made out.

9. It cannot be said that in a situation
like this, no offence will be made out. It
was further pointed out that three of the
956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
petitioners have been in the service of the
Bank for the last 31, 27 and 23 year
respectively, and they have a clean record.
No inference can be drawn from this
circumstance, about the innocence, of the
petitioners.

10. It was also pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the
financial status of the ladies was not such
as to enable them to collect jewellery of
around 20 lacs. It was further argued by
the counsel for the petitioners that no
description of the jewellery has been
given in the First Information Report.
These are matters of details to be
discovered during investigation and no
inference from them can be drawn, at this
stage, about the allegations being false. It
is disconcerting to note that, instead of
being helpful, the petitioners were hostile
and antagonistic.

11. The defalcation by the Bank
employees
should
be
deemed
unpardonable, since it undermines, the
confidence of the populace in financial
institutions. If they feel Banks are unsafe
where the people shall keep their money?
It will create confusion and disruption in
society, and any lenience, in such mattes
will be wholly misplaced.

12. Petition dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J.
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2448 of 2008

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

...Appellant
Versus
Lekhraj and others
...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Vinay Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:

Motor Vehicle Act 1988-Section 163-A,
166-Difference
between
the
two
provisions explained-under section 166
No financial limit but under Section 163a maximum limit of 40,000/-prescribeddeceased getting salary Rs.12,242/- any
deduction towards instatement of home
loan-can not be excluded Court to
consider several factor to award just
compensation-No interference called for.

Held: Para 3

We are of the view that such judgement
is not supporting the cause of the
appellant
at
all.
The
ratio
of
the
judgement is that one has to choose as
to whether the application will be filed
under Section 163-A or under Section
166 of the Act, but both can not be
proceeded simultaneously. In case it is
under Section 163-A, limitation will be
there but in case of application under
Section
166
to
arrive
at
a
'just'
compensation, the Court has to consider
various factors and arrive at the same.
We are of the view that at the time of
arriving at such finding if the Court
considers various parts of the Schedule
as a guide, the Court is not said to be at
fault in adopting an appropriate process