IN Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2018 Appellant :- Ram Prakash Tripathi Respondent :- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vishnu Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Kumar Sinha
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal.
2. Heard.
3. Delay in filing this appeal is explained satisfactorily. It is hereby condoned.
4. The application is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 Siddhant Sahu Appellant :- Ram Prakash Tripathi Respondent :- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vishnu Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Kumar Sinha
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
1. Heard Sri Vishnu Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Anand Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for respondents.
2. This intra-Court appeal under Chapter-VIII, Rule V of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, has arisen from judgment and order dated 24.05.2018 passed by learned Single Judge, dismissing appellant's writ petition No. 30173 of 2010.
3. It appears that punishment order passed by respondents after conducting dismissal proceedings against petitioner-appellant, was challenged on the ground that proceedings were wholly ex- parte as no charge-sheet was served upon petitioner-appellant. In order to verify this fact, learned Single Judge summoned original record from respondents and after perusal thereof has recorded findings that charge-sheet dated 30.07.2007 was received by petitioner-appellant by making an endorsement of receipt on 06.08.2007 and, thereafter, he also submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 30.08.2007. After completion of enquiry, a show cause notice was issued to petitioner-appellant on 12.08.2008 and a detailed note in Hindi on show cause notice dated 12.08.2008 was made by petitioner-appellant, making serious allegations against Disciplinary Authority. He further said that he had nothing to do as alleged in the matter.
4. Having recorded these facts and after perusal of entire record, learned Single Judge has found the contention of appellant was not correct. Since no other point was argued, therefore, writ petition was dismissed.
5. Now before this Court, in this Intra Court Appeal, learned counsel for appellant has contended that punishment imposed upon appellant is disproportionate but nothing has been placed before us to show that aforesaid issue was raised before learned Single Judge and has not been considered by the Court. Neither any such ground has been taken in this appeal nor anything shown to us that any other point was argued before learned Single Judge. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment in appeal passed by learned Single Judge.
6. Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 Siddhant Sahu