Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)
Naseem Ahmad And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 13 January, 2012 cites

Smt.Mithilesh Kumari And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 9 November, 2010

30. Before parting I propose to consider another aspect of the matter which has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of the argument. He sated that petitioners' repeated request for promotion remained unheeded on the part of respondent no.3 for the reason that the petitioners could not satisfy his requirement other than legal. When enquired, learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that he has not made any specific averment in the entire writ petition and that too deliberately for the reason that the petitioners have yet to serve as teachers in the Primary Schools for long and everyday will have to be supervised and monitored by respondent no.3. If they take any serious tussle with him, it would become very difficult for them to perform their duties peacefully inasmuch as there are thousand of ways in which respondent no.3 having much wider powers under various statutes, can harass them. The experience of the Court in dealing with similar matters everyday shows that apprehension and reason stated at the bar by the petitioners is not wholly unfounded. In fact, taking things with twisted arms has become everyday's fashion and is an easy tool in the hands of strong bureaucracy. This is also a facet of corruption which has deeply embedded in the society though unfortunately. Commenting upon the various facets of corruption under which the entire country is presently reeling, this Court in the case of Smt. Mithilesh Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011(1) ADJ 40 in paragraphs no.52 to 56 held as under:
Allahabad High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 26 - A Bhushan - Full Document

P.K. Chinnasamy vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 14 October, 1987

In P. K. Chinnasamy Vs. Government of T.N. and others, AIR 1988 SC 78 the Apex Court said that every public servant holds the office in trust to the public and, therefore, to justify expenditure of public revenue, duties commensurating to the office must be allowed to be discharged by every public servant. Admittedly, that has not happened in this case. The petitioner has failed to perform her duty without any authority on her part. From the point of view of petitioner or some public servant, it could have been a small matter, but this Court has no hesitation in putting on record that omission of small level of corruption ultimately grow cancerously. This country has now reached a stage where we find level of corruption running in several thousand of crores and going to even lacs of crores. Everyone wherever is possible, indulging in such activities depending on one's capacity, capability and opportunity. This Court do not mean to say that all are corrupt. Fortunately that is not so. Still we have sufficiently large number of people who do not indulge in such activities and bold enough to discard any attempt, if made by someone, but those who want to take advantage of such widespread corruption, have now become so fearless that they can dare to approach and go to any extent to lure those who are in authority, to seek favour in one or the other manner. In their belief, everyone has some price, degree may defer. Fortunately, this country still have sufficiently large number of people who are beyond such vice. Probably it is for this reason we are still marching ahead and developing with galloping pace but now time has come when stern steps have to be taken with determination and cementised will to nip out corruption at every level, lest it may be too late."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 47 - Full Document
1