Court No. - 4 Case :- REVIEW PETITION No. - 4 of 2007 Petitioner :- Mohammad Wasim Khan ( S/B 640/2006 ) Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. P.W.D. & Anr. Petitioner Counsel :- Shachindra Pratap Singh,Chandra B Pandey Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
Heard Shri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the review petitioner
and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
By this review petition the petitioner seeks to review of the
judgment dated 31.11.2006 by which the writ petition against the
order of punishment dated 3rd April, 2006 passed by the State
Government in the disciplinary proceedings holding him guilty for
the charges leveled against him; withholding 5% of pension and
directing deduction of 20% of the loss/ damage caused to the State
Government from the gratuity payable to the petitioner was
dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that he had not
argued the case and that his junior counsel had appeared.
There is no statement in the review petition that the grounds taken
in the review petition were pressed by the junior counsel. The
judgment shows that the counsel appearing for the petitioner had
submitted that the petitioner was not given opportunity to give
reply to the enquiry report. The Court found that the copy of the
enquiry report was furnished to the delinquent official in order to
enable him to raise contention as regards the quantum of
punishment. The Court, thereafter, observed that the punishment
given to the petitioner appears to be inadequate, looking to the
gravity of charges against the petitioner.
It is stated that the Court was required to consider all the grounds
taken in the writ petition and has failed to decide the case on
merits.
We are of the opinion that the counsel, who had not argued the
matter, cannot be permitted to make a statement that all the
arguments raised were not considered. The review petitioner has
also not stated in the facts or the grounds in the review petition
that any particular argument was pressed and were not considered
by the Court.
There is no error apparent on the face of record to review the
judgment.
The review petition is rejected.
Order Date :- 11.1.2010
Tripathi/SP/