Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Om Prakash Garg on 1 February, 1962

State vs . Akash Garg on 15 January, 2013

12. In this case, the prosecution has failed to examine the complainant and PW Anil Jain who were the star witnesses for the prosecution. The complainant Krishan Avtar Jain and Anil Jain could not be traced despite sending the summons through DCP Outer as they left the given address and moved to an unknown destination. All the remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution or mentioned in the list of witnesses are formal in nature and are not sufficient to State Vs. Akash Garg page 4 of 5 prove the guilt of the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prasidh Narain Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. on 9 December, 1963

The fact that his misconduct or inefficiency influenced Government action under the rule regarding compulsory retirement was held to be of no consequence, state of U.P. v. Om Prakash Garg, AIR 1963 All 390 is a case of temporary servant discharged after a month's notice from temporary service in accordance with the Temporary Servants Rules. An entry was made in his character roll to the effect that he was suspected of obtaining illegal gratification, that an inquiry was made and that for a technical reason he could not be prosecuted and the very next day the notice terminating his services after a month was served upon him without any cause being assigned. Beg, J. held that it was a case of removal. We regret that we cannot agree with our learned brother and the judgment cannot be reconciled with the decisions of the Supreme Court noticed above. There was nothing to show that the termination of his services entailed any penal consequences fn future. Whatever stigma or slur was caused by the adverse entry would have remained even if his services had not been terminated. Moreover a character roll is a contigential document and there is no question of its causing a stigma or slur after the termination of his services, mere was no justification for saying that the State Government did not merely exercise its power of terminating the temporary services of the civil servant in accordance with the Temporary Servants Rules.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1