Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.34 seconds)

Ravikant Ojha vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 24 November, 2014

8. It is not disputed that the applicants sister was convicted for the offence under Section 420 of IPC for misrepresenting her caste in the same manner in which the applicant had done for getting the Government job. She was convicted by the judgement and order dated 1.12.1999 (Exhibit P-5 in the enquiry proceeding) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tikamgarh in Criminal Case No.384/1996, State of M.P Vs. Smt. Madhur Ojha. Although, the said conviction was quashed by the Appellate Court purely on technical grounds. The fact, however, remains that the applicants sister was also belonging to OBC and not to ST. The order of acquittal dated 21.02.2002 (Annexure A-7) filed by the applicant clearly shows that it was purely on technical grounds for want of sufficient proof to establish he said offence. The mother of the applicant was also in Government service and it is shown that she belongs to OBC and not to ST category. The Enquiry Officer elaborately considered all these aspects in minute details and came to a correct conclusion. The standard of proof required in the disciplinary proceeding is based on preponderance of probability and it is not required to prove the charge against the delinquent employee beyond doubt as is required in any criminal prosecution. The applicant is, in fact, Lohar by caste which comes under OBC. However, he obtained the employment representing himself to be ST on the basis of the fraudulent caste certificate obtained by him. He was, therefore, rightly punished considering the grave nature of the charge. The applicant has not produced any notification issued by Government showing that Ojha caste is included in ST in Tikamgard district which is his native place. In fact Tikamgardh district is specifically excluded by the State Government so as to include any of the castes included under ST category under presidential order, on the basis of the clarification subsequently submitted by the Tehsildar, who issued the disputed caste certificate in favour of the applicant.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Vinitabai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 June, 2023

The appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC and have been sentenced to R.I. for 03-03 years and fine of Rs.1000/- for each offence with default stipulations by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa, District Khandwa (M.P.) vide judgment dated 16.5.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No.91/2017 (State of M.P. Vs. Vinita Bai and others).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - D K Paliwal - Full Document

C482/2068/2023 on 17 October, 2023

Since there is no apparent case, which is made out against the present applicant for her involvement in commission of offences under Sections 354C, 509, 109, 269, 34 of the IPC, summoning order dated 26.07.2023 issued against the present applicant by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora in Criminal Case No.696 of 2023, "State Vs. Vinita Joshi and Others" would be kept in abeyance qua the present applicant only.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S K Sharma - Full Document

Siddharath Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2024

It is pointed out that the relief which has been claimed on the basis of order passed in W.P. No.30205/2023 ( Smt. Vinita Raghuwanshi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh) decided vide order dated 23.02.2024 has been put to challenge before the Division Bench in W.A. No.808/2024 ( The State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Smt. Vinita Raghuwanshi and others ) wherein the Division Bench has granted interim relief in the appeal.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - V Mishra - Full Document
1