# Shubh Karan Pandey v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 138
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-05
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482/378/407 No. 6561 of 2019
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shubh-karan-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46899
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 419 - punishment for
cheating by personation, Sections 420 -
Cheating
and
dishonestly
inducing
delivery of property, Sections 467 -
forgery of valuable security, will, etc. ,
Sections 468 -forgery for purpose of
cheating, Code of criminal procedure,
1973 - Section 24 - Public Prosecutor ,
Section 190(1)b - Cognizance of offences
by magistrates ,upon a police report of
such facts , Section 301 - Appearance by
Public
Prosecutors
,
Section
302
-
permission to conduct prosecution - if
middle
some
interloper
or
officious
intervener were permitted without any
interest or concern, then, it will be not
only the waste of time of the Court but
also increase the pendency of vexatious
litigations causing annoyance, frustration
and worry among the genuine litigants.
(Para - 25)

Petitioner, who had purchased the land for due
consideration from the seller - subsequently got
the mutation done in his favour - mistake if any,
was duly rectified by the revenue authorities -
opposite party no. 2, who is an absolute
stranger to the proceedings - firstly lodged a
first information report against the petitioner -
subsequently when no materials was found
during investigation moved a protest petition
seeking continuance of the prosecution of the
petitioner - even contested the matter before
the revisional Court as well as this Court.(Para -
24 ,27)

HELD: - No criminal act having been committed
during the entire process. The application
moved by opposite party no. 2, does not reveal
any commission of offence by the petitioner and
no material has been placed so as to indicate
that the petitioner has committed any forgery or
has played fraud. Permitting any proceedings to
continue against the petitioner would be nothing
but an abuse of the process of law and
accordingly the impugned orders, are hereby
quashed, and no proceedings deserve to be
continued on the basis of the final report filed
by the Police. (Para -27,28)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
certificates regarding status of the factory
requirement of coal by the petitioners.
Therefore, there is no substance in the
submission
of
the
counsel
for
the
petitioners
that
offence
of
criminal
conspiracy between the petitioners and
officials of the NCL is not made out.

74. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, I do not find any merit and
substance in these petitions filed under
Section 482 CrPC and, therefore, they are
dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated. The learned trial Court concerned
is directed to proceed with the trial and,
conclude
the
same
expeditiously,
preferably within one year from today.

75. Let a copy of this order be
transmitted to the learned trial Court
concerned forthwith for compliance.
----------
(2021)03ILR A138
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Application U/S 482/378/407 No. 6561 of 2019

Shubh Karan Pandey ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Diwakar Pratap Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Rakesh Kumar Singh

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 419 - punishment for
cheating by personation, Sections 420 -
Cheating
and
dishonestly
inducing
delivery of property, Sections 467 -
forgery of valuable security, will, etc. ,
Sections 468 -forgery for purpose of
cheating, Code of criminal procedure,
1973 - Section 24 - Public Prosecutor ,
Section 190(1)b - Cognizance of offences
by magistrates ,upon a police report of
such facts , Section 301 - Appearance by
Public
Prosecutors
,
Section
302
-
permission to conduct prosecution - if
middle
some
interloper
or
officious
intervener were permitted without any
interest or concern, then, it will be not
only the waste of time of the Court but
also increase the pendency of vexatious
litigations causing annoyance, frustration
and worry among the genuine litigants.
(Para - 25)

Petitioner, who had purchased the land for due
consideration from the seller - subsequently got
the mutation done in his favour - mistake if any,
was duly rectified by the revenue authorities -
opposite party no. 2, who is an absolute
stranger to the proceedings - firstly lodged a
first information report against the petitioner -
subsequently when no materials was found
during investigation moved a protest petition
seeking continuance of the prosecution of the
petitioner - even contested the matter before
the revisional Court as well as this Court.(Para -
24 ,27)

HELD: - No criminal act having been committed
during the entire process. The application
moved by opposite party no. 2, does not reveal
any commission of offence by the petitioner and
no material has been placed so as to indicate
that the petitioner has committed any forgery or
has played fraud. Permitting any proceedings to
continue against the petitioner would be nothing
but an abuse of the process of law and
accordingly the impugned orders, are hereby
quashed, and no proceedings deserve to be
continued on the basis of the final report filed
by the Police. (Para -27,28)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Thakur Ram Vs St. of Bih., AIR 1966 SC 911
3 All. Shubh Karan Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
139
2. Kuldip Singh Vs St. of Har., 1979 SCC Online
(P&H) 212

3. Praveen Malhotra Vs St., 1990 SCC Online
(Del) 51

4. Arunachalam Vs P.S.R. Sadhanantham,
(1979) 2 SCC 297

5. P. Vs Narashimharao Vs St., 1997 SCC Online
(Del) 485

6. All India Democratic Women's Assn. Vs St.,
1997 SCC Online (Mad) 1040

7. Janta Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary & ors., AIR
1993 SC 892

8. BALCO Employees Union Vs U.O.I. & ors.,
AIR 2002 SC 350, at para 84

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Diwakar Pratap Pandey,
learned counsel for the applicant as well as
learned Additional Government Advocate for
the State of U.P. and Sri Rakesh Kumar
Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
opposite party no. 2.

2. By means of present application u/s
482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has assailed the
order dated 16.11.2018, passed by the
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Ambedkar Nagar in Crime No. 218 of 2013,
under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C.,
Police Station - Bhiti, District - Ambedkar
Nagar as well as order dated 03.09.2019,
passed by the Sessions Judge, Ambedkar
Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 95 of 2019 -
Subhkaran Vs. State of U.P. and Another.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the
applicant purchased 1/2 share of Gata No.
805, area 0.686 hectares, situated at Village
- Chandapur, Tehsil - Bhiti, District -
Ambedkar Nagar from one Ram Piyare S/o
Ramkaran, resident of the applicant's
village on 2nd July, 2003. Subsequent to
the purchase of the said land, the applicant
moved an application for mutation. On his
application for mutation, the Revenue
Authorities mutated the entire area of Gata
No. 805 in favour of the applicant. In the
meanwhile,
earstwhile
owner
of
the
property - Ram Piyare, expired, leaving his
son
Vipin
Kumar,
who
moved
an
application for rectification of the mistake
and his application was allowed and the
revenue authorities duly corrected the
mistake committed earlier. Subsequently, it
has also been stated that Vipin Kumar
executed a sale deed of the remaining 1/2
area of Gata No. 805 in the name of
applicant's sons namely Chintamani Pandey
and Sheshmani Pandey. In the present case
opposite party no. 2 is the complainant who
lodged the first information report against
the applicant on 09.09.2013, stating that the
applicant had committed fraud in collusion
with the revenue authorities and thereby the
entire area of Gata No. 805 was mutated in
favour of applicant. The complainant has
stated that correct facts were deliberately
concealed from the revenue authorities and
therefore, first information report dated
09/10.09.2013, under Sections 419, 420,
467, 468 I.P.C., Police Station - Bhiti,
District - Ambedkar Nagar was lodged. The
Police investigated the matter wherein
statements of the revenue authorities were
also recorded alongwith the statement of
the applicant as well as Sri Vipin Kumar -
complainant (son of original owner of the
land). The Police after investigation was of
the opinion that no case is made out and
submitted final report before the Court of
Magistrate on 15th September, 2013. On
03.12.2014, an application was moved by
Vipin
Kumar
before
the
Magistrate
requesting to accept the report submitted by
the Police while opposite party no. 2
moved a protest application on 22.06.2016.
140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. By means of order dated
16.01.2018, the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar rejected the
final report and took cognizance of the case
under Section 190(1)b of Cr.P.C. and
treating the application of opposite party
no. 2 as complainant case issued summons
to the applicant.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated
16.01.2018, the applicant filed revision
before the Sessions Judge, Ambedkar
Nagar, who also upheld the order passed by
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
and dismissed the revision preferred by the
applicant
by
means
of
order
dated
03.09.2019, which has been impugned in
the present application.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
has placed great reliance on the fact that
there is no dispute among the seller,
purchaser and the revenue authorities. He
submits that it is not the case that there was
any
fraud
factual
or
otherwise
or
manipulation in the records by either of the
parties. He further submits that the
applicant has purchased 1/2 share of Gata
No. 805 and when the applicant moved an
application for mutation, due to some
mistake, the revenue authorities mutated
the entire area of Gata No. 805 in favour of
the applicant and on coming to know about
the said mistake, it was duly corrected.

7. It is next submitted by learned
counsel for the applicant that subsequently
in the light of the fact that about
Rs.2,00,000/- were given to the owner of
the land, the remaining portion of Gata No.
805 was also mutated in favour of the sons
of the applicant. It is also submitted that the
opposite party no. 2 has no interest or any
locus
in
the
matter
and
criminal
proceedings are being proceeded only at his
behest and insistence of the complainant. It
is further submitted that opposite party no.
2 is not a victim or aggrieved person so as
to pursue the criminal case against the
applicant.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
has laid great emphasis of the fact that the
entire matter was investigated by the Police
wherein statements of the concerned
persons
were
recorded
and
after
examination
of
the
statements
and
especially the statement of the owner of the
property, who specifically stated that he
had no grievance nor he supported the
version of the complainant that there is any
forgery. The revenue authorities also
appeared during the investigation and their
statements were also recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., where also any sort of
manipulation or forgery in the records was
denied. Counsel for the applicant lastly
submits that in absence of any material to
support the contention of opposite party no.
2, present criminal proceedings have been
initiated.

9. Perusal of impugned orders passed
by
the
Civil
Judge
(Senior
Division)/Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate as well as the revisional Court
dated 03.09.2019 passed by the Sessions
Judge, it is worth considering that both the
Courts below have merely relied upon the
facts stated in the protest petition whereas,
it is alleged that the applicant is guilty of
forging and manipulating the records in
collusion with the Revenue Authorities. In
both the orders there is not an iota of
mention as to whether some wrong fact was
pleaded in the application for mutation
moved pursuant to the sale deed or any fact
was
deliberately,
intentionally
or
wrongfully stated so as to mislead the
Revenue Authorities to mutate the entire
3 All. Shubh Karan Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
141
land in favour of the applicant or what was
the nature of the forgery or the details of
the fraud done by the applicant, while
moving the application for mutation. In
absence of aforesaid considerations or any
averment in this regard, it is clearly borne
out that both the Court below have not
applied their mind to verify the allegations
made by opposite party no. 2, who is the
author of the present controversy, before
proceeding to accept his application.

10. The gravamen of the contention of
learned counsel for the applicant is that the
criminal proceedings are to be prosecuted
by the State and a stranger to the dispute
who is not a victim nor aggrieved person
does not have any locus to participate in the
criminal proceedings as per provisions of
the Code. Learned counsel for the applicant
has made serious allegations against
opposite party no. 2 to the effect that he
wants to grab the remaining area of Gata
No. 805 and only for this purpose he has
lodged the first information report in
question.

11. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of opposite party no. 2, to whom
notices were issued appeared before this
Court and vehemently contested the matter.
He could not even attempt to answer as to
what is his interest in the present
proceedings or particularly how he would
be benefited in case the applicant is
prosecuted and what is his interest in the
said dispute.

12. Just because the complainant
lodged the first information report and
consequently when the Police had filed
final report, he appeared before the Court
of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
and filed protest petition, and subsequently
when notices were issued by this Court he
submitted that it was his duty to appear and
contest the matter.

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

14. Looking into the facts as
submitted above, the main question which
arise is to ascertain the locus of opposite
party no. 2 to interfere in the present
proceedings.

15. Learned counsel for the applicant
has vehemently submitted that it is well
settled that a third party who is neither a
victim nor has any interest, has no locus
standi in the criminal proceedings.

16. Much reliance was placed on
Section 24 Cr.P.C. Section 24 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 C.rP.C. which
lays down that a Public Prosecutor shall be
appointed
for
conducting prosecution,
appeal or other proceeding on behalf of the
Government, as the case may be. Section
301
Cr.P.C.
states
that
the
Public
Prosecutor
or
the
Assistant
Public
Prosecutor in charge of a case may appear
and plead without any written authority
before any court in which that case is under
inquiry, trial or appeal. It further states that
if in any such case any private person
instructs a pleader to prosecute any person
in any court, the pleader so instructed shall
act under the directions of the Public
Prosecutor
or
the
Assistant
Public
Prosecutor and may with the permission of
the court, submit written arguments after
the evidence is closed in the case. Section
302 Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate
inquiring into or trying a case to permit the
prosecution to be conducted by any person
other than a police officer below the rank
of inspector. It further states that no person
other than the Advocate General or
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government
Advocate
or
a
Public
Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor
shall be entitled to do so without such
permission. Any person conducting the
prosecution may do so personally or
through his pleader.

17. Reliance has also been placed on
Section 301 Cr.P.C. Section 301 came to be
interpreted in a number of cases. In
Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966
SC 911 the Supreme Court ruled that in a
case which has proceeded on a police
report, a private party has no locus standi.
It further ruled that, barring a few
exceptions,
in
criminal
matters,
the
aggrieved party is the State, which is the
custodian of the social interests of the
community at large, and so it is necessary
for the State to take all steps necessary for
bringing the person who has acted against
the social interests of the community, to
book.

18. In Kuldip Singh v. State of
Haryana, 1979 SCC Online (P&H) 212
the Punjab and Haryana High Court held
that, the Court has no role to play as
regards a person engaging her own pleader,
since the pleader's role is confined to
briefing the Public Prosecutor. The Court
further held that it only has a say in the
matter, if the pleader so engaged by the
party, wishes to make a written submission.

19. In Praveen Malhotra v. State,
1990 SCC Online (Del) 51 a third party
sought to intervene in the matter and
present oral arguments against a petition
for bail filed by the accused. The
petitioners relied on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Arunachalam v. P.S.R.
Sadhanantham, (1979) 2 SCC 297 where
the Supreme Court had ruled that under
Article 136, it can entertain appeals against
judgments of acquittal by the High Court at
the instance of private parties also, as
Article 136 does not inhibit anyone from
invoking the Court's jurisdiction. The
Court, in the present case, distinguished
this case and said that the ruling made by
the Supreme Court in the context of Article
136 cannot be relied upon in the context of
a third party seeking to intervene in a bail
application filed by the accused under
Section 439 Cr.P.C., exercising powers
under Section 482.

20.

In
the
case
of
P.V.
Narashimharao v. State, 1997 SCC
Online (Del) 485 the petitioner sought to
intervene in an appeal filed by the accused
against the order of the trial court. The
Delhi High Court ruled that there was no
provision in Cr.P.C. analogous to Order 1
Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. It
further stated that a reading of the section
shows that a private party has no role in a
proceeding instituted by the State. Hence,
the application of the petitioner to intervene
was rejected. In All India Democratic
Women's Assn. v. State, 1997 SCC
Online (Mad) 1040 wherein the High
Court of Madras stated that Section 301(2)
Cr.P.C. gives a third party only a right to
assist the prosecution. The prosecution of
the criminal proceedings, the Court held, is
primary responsibility of the State, and if
third parties are allowed to intervene,
then there will be a number of
associations to represent one party or the
other in criminal proceedings, and this
would give rise to confusion and chaos.

21.

Considering
the
aforesaid
decisions it is clear that the opposite party
no. 2, is a stranger to the entire
proceedings, has actively participated in the
same in furtherance of his object to see that
the petitioner is duly prosecuted in
3 All. Shubh Karan Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
143
pursuance of the first information report
lodged by him. He has not disclosed
anywhere in the proceedings below, or
before this court, as to what is his interest
in the matter. Devoid of any interest in the
disputed property, the opposite party no. 2,
is neither an aggrieved person not has any
sort of interest in the said dispute, and is
therefore, clearly a stranger who is persuing
the case for his personal objects which are
not clear and therefore he does not have
any locus standi to participate in the
proceedings
for
prosecution
of
the
petitioner. It has further been alleged that
opposite party no. 2 himself is trying to
usurp the property, and therefore he is
pursuing the prosecution against the
petitioner.

22. This Court has also gone into the
merits
of
the
matter,
including
the
applications moved by opposite party no. 2,
as well as the first information report. The
opposite party no. 2 has not placed any
material before the Court by means of his
protest petition, which may indicate the
culpability of the petitioner or the revenue
authorities. The buyer and seller also
unanimously agree that there was neither
any illegality in the transaction, nor, in the
mutation
proceedings,
but
the
entire
prosecution
is
being
sponsored
and
promoted by opposite party no. 2, without
there being any material to support the
contention raised by him. It has not been
disclosed by him as to in what manner the
petitioner has committed forgery or played
fraud, but surprisingly, was able to
convince the Courts below to proceed
against the petitioner, without there being
any material to support his contention.

23. The statement of Baijnath Prasad,
Naib Thesildar has also been filed,
according to whom on an application for
mutation preferred by the petitioner, and by
means of order dated 13.5.2013, he had
mutated Gata No.805, area 0.686 hectares
in favour of petitioner, after obtaining
reports form the concerned Lekhpal and
Kangoo. Subsequently, on 07.06.2013, an
application for correction was moved by
the petitioner, on which the Naib Thesildar
cancelled
his
earlier
order
dated
13.05.2013, but on 18.06.2013, Vipin, the
seller himself appeared before the authority
and confirmed the sale and therefore he
restored his earlier order dated 13.05.2013.
He has stated that there was no fraud or
forgery, and the entire exercise has been
done in accordance with law.

24. This Court in exercise of powers
vested under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
would readily step in, to prevent any abuse
of the process of law. In the present case
the facts as stated above clearly make out a
case for interference by this Court. The
opposite party no. 2, who is an absolute
stranger to the proceedings, firstly lodged a
first
information
report
against
the
petitioner and subsequently when no
materials was found during investigation
moved
a
protest
petition
seeking
continuance of the prosecution of the
petitioner and even contested the matter
before the revisional Court as well as this
Court.

25. It is thus clear that if middlesome
interloper or officious intervener were
permitted without any interest or concern,
then, it will be not only the waste of time of
the Court but also increase the pendency of
vexatious litigations causing annoyance,
frustration and worry among the genuine
litigants. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Janta
Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others,
AIR 1993 SC 892, observed in this regard
as under :
144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"109. It is thus clear that only a
person acting bona fide and having
sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL
will alone have a locus standi and can
approach the court to wipe out the tears of
the poor and needy, suffering from
violation of their fundamental rights, but
not a person for personal gain or private
profit or political motive or any oblique
consideration.
Similarly,
a
vexatious
petition under the colour of PIL brought
before the court for vindicating any
personal grievances, deserves rejection at
the threshold."

26. If such litigants who act with
oblique motive are permitted to approach
the
Courts,
then
the
busybodies,
meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or
officious interveners having absolutely no
public interest except for personal gain
or private profit either for themselves or
as proxy of others or for any other
extraneous motivation or for glare of
publicity break the queue muffling their
faces by wearing the mask of public
interest litigation, and get into the courts
by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions
and thus criminally waste the valuable
time of the courts and as a result of which
the queue standing outside the doors of
the Court never moves which piquant
situation creates a frustration in the
minds of the genuine litigants and
resultantly
they
lose
faith
in
the
administration of our judicial system.
(BALCO Employees Union Vs. Union of
India and Others, AIR 2002 SC 350, at
para 84).

27. The petitioner, who had
purchased the land for due consideration
from the seller, and that subsequently got
the mutation done in his favour, and the
mistake if any, was duly rectified by the
revenue authorities. I do not find any
criminal act having been committed
during the entire process. The only
person who could have been aggrieved
was the seller, who's statement was
recorded before the Police authorities
during investigation, and he also clearly
stated that he had no grievance against
the purchaser. Even the statement of the
revenue authorities were recorded by the
Police who did not find commission of
any offence and therefore a final report
was filed before the Magistrate. The
application moved by opposite party no.
2, also does not reveal any commission of
offence by the petitioner and no material
has been placed so as to indicate that the
petitioner has committed any forgery or
has played fraud.

28.

In
such
circumstances
permitting any proceedings to continue
against the petitioner would be nothing
but an abuse of the process of law, and
accordingly the impugned orders dated
16.11.2018, passed by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar
Nagar in Case Crime No. 218 of 2013,
under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C.,
Police
Station
-
Bhiti,
District
-
Ambedkar Nagar as well as order dated
03.09.2019, passed by the Sessions
Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal
Revision No. 95 of 2019 - Subhkaran Vs.
State of U.P. and Another, are hereby
quashed, and no proceedings deserve to
be continued on the basis of the final
report filed by the Police in Case Crime
No. 218 of 2013, under Sections 419,
420, 467, 468 I.P.C., Police Station -
Bhiti, District - Ambedkar Nagar.

29. The application is accordingly
allowed.
----------
3 All. Ram Prakash Bajpai Vs. State of U.P.
145
(2021)03ILR A145
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:LUCKNOW 15.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Service Single No. 331 of 2012

Ram Prakash Bajpai ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Prem Shankar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ - Res Judicata -Applicability- Second
writ petition -Maintainability-Earlier writ
petition was not decided on meritsAcquittal in criminal case subsequently -
Effect-Principle
of
res
judicata
is
applicable to the writ proceedings in
India. But, the same should not be applied
on mere technical consideration of form,
but by a matter of substance within the
limits allowed by law -Held, from the
order passed by this Court in the first writ
petition it cannot be inferred in any
manner
that
the
challenge
of
the
petitioner to his dismissal was decided by
this court on merits or that the petitioner
had abandoned his challenge to the same
in any manner whatsoever-Since the
earlier writ petition was not decided on
merits the principle of res judicata cannot
be applied. (Para 8)

B. Service law-Departmental enquiry-No
witness to proof document against the
employee/petitioner - Enquiry not as per
the procedure established by law - Effect
-Held, Punishment order passed against
the petitioner on the basis of an defective
and illegal enquiry cannot stand. (Para 10
and 12)
Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

1. Sarguja Transport Service Vs St. Transport
Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior, & ors., (1987)
1 SCC 5

2. Sheoparsan Singh & ors. Vs Ramnandan
Singh & ors. 1916 ILR 43P.C. 694

3. Canara Bank Vs N.G. Subbaraya Setty & ors.
(2018) 16 SCC 228

4. Subhas Chandra Sharma Vs Managing
Director & anr. 2001 (1) UPLBEC 541

5. Subhas Chandra Sharma Vs U.P. Co-operative
Spinning Mills & ors. 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475

6. St. of Uttar Pradesh Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha
(2010) 2 SCC 772

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
respondents.

2. Petitioner was working on the post
of the driver when he was sent from
Lucknow to Bangaluru by truck along with
Sri V.K. Saxena, Junior Aircraft Mechanic,
and Sri Harish Chandra @ Munna, Cleaner
to bring spare parts of a helicopter. The
allegations are that on 06.06.1994, they
illegally loaded the truck with some teak
wood, for which they were arrested in
District Adilabad, State of Andhra Pradesh.
A criminal case was lodged against them
before the Court of Munsif Magistrate,
Boath, District Adilabad, State of Andhra
Pradesh. On 18.06.1994, the petitioner
along with the junior aircraft mechanic and
the cleaner was suspended. All three
persons
were
charge-sheeted
in
a
departmental
enquiry
and
they
also