News By/Courtesy: Kabir Jaiswal | 09 Jul 2019 21:07pm IST

HIGHLIGHTS

  • The Calcutta High Court reinstated a judicial officer who had been forcibly retired from duty, but instructed him to pay Rupees one lakh expenses.
  • Violence erupted around the court of the Railway Magistrate after P. K. Singh was taken into custody following the case established against him under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code.
  • The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Suvra Ghosh, allowed his written appeal

The Calcutta High Court reinstated a judicial officer who had been forcibly retired from duty, but instructed him to pay Rupees one lakh expenses.

Mintu Mallick was the Judicial Magistrate and Railway Magistrate, Sealdah, dual in charge. While waiting for the train to reach his office on 5 May 2007, local people informed him the train was running invariably late. He was notified that the normal late running of such train was on account of illegal stoppages somewhere after the New Alipore station when contraband material was offloaded from the train, and the drivers and guards were playing ball with smugglers to promote the spurious trade.

Then Mallick intervened with the issue and walked to the car of the motorman, and spoke to the driver. He directed the Railway Police to guarantee that the driver and the train guard were submitted before the Railway Magistrate's court due to unsatisfactory responses. Some railway staff, led by one PK Singh, screamed slogans before the court of the Railway Magistrate, and used abusive language against the Railway Magistrate and interrupted court job.

Violence erupted around the court of the Railway Magistrate after P. K. Singh was taken into custody following the case established against him under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Lastly, he was punished for mandatory retirement. The single bench, challenging this order by Mallick, rejected the petition for writing.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Suvra Ghosh, allowed his written appeal to observe that the disciplinary committee finding him guilty of the charges could not be upheld, and the penalty imposed is disproportionate and shocking even if the guilt was established.

Section Editor: Sandeep G | 09 Jul 2019 21:31pm IST


Tags : #Legal

Latest News

























5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice


Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.