Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. vs Vijay Shankar Dixit (D) Th.Lrs. on 24 January, 2014

Dhruv Bhushan Dubey vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 25 May, 2018

11. It is not the case of respondents that the nature of charge was such that a regular departmental enquiry immediately was found expedient and for collecting material for initiating regular departmental enquiry, a fact finding enquiry was directed to the subordinate authority. The insistence on enquiry report after conducting preliminary enquiry shows that disciplinary authority itself is not very sure as to whether there is anything against the petitioner, prima facie, justifying regular enquiry and that is how a preliminary enquiry report is desired, though within a short time. This by itself makes it very clear that impugned order, as a matter of fact, is in a contemplated or pending preliminary enquiry and mention of contemplated departmental enquiry in opening part of suspension order is nothing but a camouflage. This by itself would not give any sanctity or better status to the impugned order and cannot protect it from the dictum of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Jay Singh Dixit (supra) as also Raj Veer Singh (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Manvendra And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 November, 2022

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the Charge Sheet No.01 of 2019, dated 21.11.2019 and cognizance order dated 03.01.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 49 of 2020 (State Vs. Vijay Shankar Dixit and others) arising out of Case Crime No.247 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Rampura, District Jalaun.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - G Chowdhary - Full Document

Vijay Dixit vs State on 18 July, 2017

1. Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 20.10.2016 passed by the court of Sh. Satish Kumar Arora, the then Ld. CMM, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in case FIR No. 239/08, PS - EOW in State Vs Vijay Dixit, vide which the then Ld. CMM was pleased to direct framing of charges for the offences under section 409/420/174A IPC   against   the   petitioner/revisionist,   the   petitioner/revisionist   had CR No. 21/17 Vijay Dixit Vs State Page No. 1 of 6 challenged the same on the following amongst other grounds:­ 1.1 That no offence under section 420 IPC was made out against the petitioner/revisionist, as he had at no point of time dishonestly or fraudulently induced the complainant to part with the property, rather the parties had mutually entered into an agreement.  It has also been stated that even the then Ld. CMM had passed the order in haste and failed to apply his judicial mind and thus, went ahead in pronouncing an   illegal   and   perverse   order   without   considering   the   facts   and circumstances of the case.   The then Ld. CMM is further stated to have   not   considered   the   report   of   the   police   in   the   chargesheet regarding enquiries held by them from L&DO Department, Delhi and the then Ld. CMM had further failed to consider the facts that even the investigating   agency   in   the   charge   sheet   had   mentioned   about   the payment of Rs. 42.4 Lakhs received by the complainant namely Dr. Manjula   Krippendorf   from   the   petitioner.   Hence,   it   was   purely   a commercial   transaction   which   was   given   a   colour   of   the   criminal offence by way of  a cooked up story. Hence, no criminality could have been attached to the acts of the petitioner/revisionist. CR No. 21/17 Vijay Dixit Vs State Page No. 2 of 6 1.2 Further   it   has   been   argued   and   contended   on   behalf   of   the revisionist/petitioner   that   since   the   liability   had   arisen   out   of   an agreement/contract which was purely commercial in nature, hence, the offence under section 409 IPC would not get attracted per se and the then Ld. CMM had not bothered to appreciate these arguments and contentions of the petitioner/revisionist.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Robish Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Deptt. Of ... on 1 December, 2020

However, whether a suspension order passed during pendency of preliminary enquiry is valid or not is another question which has to be answered according to the test as laid down by the Larger Bench in State of U.P. Vs. Jay Singh Dixit and others i.e. when on an objective consideration of the material the appointing authority considers the case as one which would lead to a departmental enquiry then suspension would be justified irrespective of the fact whether a preliminary enquiry has been initiated or if initiated has not been completed. Meaning thereby, there has to be an objective consideration of material by the appointing / suspending authority in this regard.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R Roy - Full Document

Brijesh Maurya vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Cooperative ... on 12 March, 2024

4. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision in the case of State of U.P. versus Jay Singh Dixit & Ors; 1975 ALR 64 as well as Rajveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2010(10) ADJ 246 to submit that it is imperative upon the disciplinary authority to objectively consider material before the authority and to reach a subjective satisfaction that a departmental inquiry irrespective of any preliminary inquiry would be required.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M Mathur - Full Document

Saurabh Nishad vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 August, 2025

In the impugned order, Inquiry Officer has been appointed i.e. a proper inquiry is contemplated whereas in Sachchida Nand Tripathi (supra), it was a case where after suspension, a preliminary inquiry was suggested, therefore, taking reference of a Full Bench Judgment in State of U.P. vs. Jay Singh Dixit and others, 1975 ALR 64 wherein issue of preliminary inquiry after suspension was considered, however, facts of present case are absolutely different since after suspension, proper disciplinary proceedings is initiated, therefore, reliance placed on Sachchida Nand Tripathi (supra) is misplaced.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S S Shamshery - Full Document
1