text:
Kataluna Patricia Enriquez is an American beauty pageant titleholder, healthcare administrator, and fashion designer.

In March 2021, she won the Miss Silver State USA pageant. On 27 June 2021, she was crowned Miss Nevada USA. With her wins, she became the first openly transgender woman to earn the titles and to become qualified to compete in the Miss USA pageant. She is also the owner of a clothing line, Kataluna Kouture.

Early life and education
Kataluna Enriquez was born in the Philippines and emigrated to the United States with her family when she was 10, settling in San Leandro, California and becoming a member of the San Leandro Academy for Multimedia (SLAM), in the San Francisco Bay Area. She is Filipina American and is the eldest of seven siblings.

She has spoken publicly about her high school experiences surviving bullying, abuse, and discrimination due to her gender identity, as well as her positive experiences with mental health therapy during childhood.

Enriquez later attended school for fashion design at the Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising.

Career
Enriquez began competing in transgender pageants in 2015, while working as a model. She has previously won Queen California, Queen USA 2016, and Super Sireyna WWUSA. When she first began competing, she was unable to afford custom designer gowns, so she designed her own and later started her own fashion line, Kataluna Kouture. She began competing in cisgender pageants in 2020.

She has used the platform of pageants to advocate for inclusivity and diversity, and to promote transgender rights and support for LGBTQ+ youth. She also uses her social media to promote the hashtag #BEVISIBLE, in a campaign against hate that includes sharing her life experiences.

In March 2021, Enriquez won Miss Silver State USA, which qualified her to compete at Miss Nevada USA 2021, and she was the first openly transgender woman to win the Miss Silver State USA title. In June 2021, she won the title of Miss Nevada USA, which qualified her to participate in the Miss USA 2021 pageant and made her the first openly transgender woman to compete for the Miss USA title. At Miss USA 2021, Enriquez did not advance to the final stage. Afterwards, Miss USA Elle Smith said it was "an honor" to participate with Enriquez and "she had every right to be on that stage". As Miss Nevada USA, Enriquez plans to engage in public speaking and advocacy on behalf of the LGBTQIA Center of Southern Nevada and Las Vegas TransPride.

In addition to her work as a model and fashion designer, she also works as a healthcare administrator with a focus on healthcare needs for LGBTQ+ patients.

References

1990s births
Living people
People from Angeles City
People from San Leandro, California
Filipino LGBT artists
American beauty pageant contestants
American fashion designers
Transgender female models
LGBT models
LGBT fashion designers
American models of Filipino descent
Filipino expatriates in the United States
20th-century Filipino women
21st-century Filipino women
21st-century Filipino businesspeople
21st-century American businesspeople
21st-century American businesswomen
Year of birth missing (living people)


Law Web: Whether higher Judiciary has duty to protect subordinate judicial officers?
Whether higher Judiciary has duty to protect subordinate judicial officers?
"The Presiding Officers of the Court cannot act as fugitives.
(c) A subordinate judicial officer works mostly in a charged atmosphere. He is under a psychological pressure - contestants and lawyers breathing down his neck. If the fact that he renders a decision which is resented by a litigant or his lawyer were to expose him to such risk, it will sound the death knell of the institution.
(d) The subordinate judiciary works in the supervision of the High Court and it faces problems at the hands of unscrupulous litigants and lawyers, and for them "Judge bashing" becomes a favourable pastime. In case the High Court does not protect the honest judicial officers, the survivor of the judicial system would itself be in danger.
A. That the appellant had joined the Gujarat State Judicial Service in 1978, and was promoted subsequently as Civil Judge (Senior Division) in 1992. She was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate (Rural) in Ahmedabad. In December 1991, she was trying one Gautam Ghanshyam Jani in CBI Case No.5 of 1991 for the offence of misappropriation and embezzlement of public money. The accused filed a complaint with the CBI on 19.8.1993, against the appellant alleging that she had demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 17.8.1993 as illegal gratification, to pass order in his favour, through one C.B. Gajjar, Advocate. As it was not possible for the complainant to pay the said amount, the appellant had agreed to accept the same in installments, and in order to facilitate the said complainant's efforts to arrange the said amount in part, she had even granted adjournment.
C. A chargesheet dated 6.8.1994, containing 12 charges was served upon the appellant. One of the main charges was, the demand of illegal gratification to the tune of Rs.20,000/- from G.G. Jani through C.B. Gajjar, Advocate in lieu of favouring the complainant/accused. Another relevant charge was that a person known as "Mama" amongst the litigants, would come to her residence, accompany her to court, and collect money from litigants on her behalf and thus, she had indulged in corrupt practices.
D. During the course of the enquiry, G.G. Jani, C.B. Gajjar, P.K. Pancholi and certain other witnesses were examined by the department and in her defence, the appellant examined herself denying all the allegations made against her. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 24.10.1997, holding the appellant guilty of the first charge and partially guilty of the second charge, i.e. to the extent that one person named "Mama" used to visit her quite frequently. However, it could not be proved that he had ever misused his association with the appellant in any respect. All other charges were found unsubstantiated.
F. Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said order of punishment, by filing a Special Civil Application No.5759 of 1999 before the High Court on the ground that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse and based on no evidence. However, the said civil application was dismissed by the High Court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.8.2004.
3. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that one Gautam Ghanshyam Bhai Jani, an officer of Oriental Insurance Company at Mehasana had been involved in a CBI case for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. After investigation, a chargesheet had been filed against him in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in case no.5 of 1991. Shri Bhatt, the then CJM had liberally granted long adjournments to the accused complainant. The case had started in 1991, but no progress was made till 1993, as the accused- complainant had only been seeking adjournments. The appellant had joined in the said Court as CJM in 1993, and wanted to conclude the trial, thus, she granted short adjournments. The accused/complainant was being represented by Shri Pankaj Pancholi, Advocate. He had been granted adjournments one or two times, but later on, the appellant refused to accommodate him. She hence, began examining witnesses even in the absence of the complainant's advocate. The complainant was directed/ instructed to keep his advocate present, and in the event that Shri Pankaj Pancholi was not available, to make alternative arrangement. Shri Pankaj Pancholi introduced the accused-complainant to Shri C.B. Gajjar, Advocate practicing therein. Shri Pankaj Pancholi told Shri Gajjar that as the accused-complainant was his relative, he was not in a position to ask the accused to pay fees. Thus, Shri Gajjar should ask the accused-complainant to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the appellant, in order to get a favourable order. The appellant did not meet Shri Gajjar in her chamber, nor did she put up any demand. The complaint, however, was motivated as the appellant was a very strict officer. This theory of demand/bribe and further, the readiness to accept the same in installments, was a cooked up story. The findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse, as Shri Gajjar, Advocate has denied meeting the appellant in her chamber. The High Court did not appreciate the evidence in correct perspective and failed to protect a honest judicial officer, which was its obligation. The punishment imposed is too severe and disproportionate to the delinquency. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
4. Per contra, Ms. Enatoli K. Sema, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal contending that the case of demand of bribe, and an agreement to accept the same in installments, stands fully proved. Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971, provides for major penalties in the event that a charge is proved against the delinquent, which include reduction to a lower stage in the timescale of pay for a specified period; reduction to a lower time scale of pay; compulsory retirement; removal from service and dismissal from service. The High Court was lenient and only imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement, otherwise it was a fit case where the appellant ought to have been dismissed from service. There is ample evidence on record to establish the charge of corruption against her, which has been properly appreciated by the Enquiry Officer, as well as by the High Court. Standard of proof required in a case of Departmental Enquiry is not that of "beyond reasonable doubt", as required in a criminal trial. Moreover, the scope of judicial review is limited in such a case. Thus, no interference is called for.
It may be pertinent to deal with the legal issues involved herein, before dealing with the case on merits.
" … Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidences to prove the charge.
Although the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial, i.e., beyond all reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures." (Emphasis added) (See also : Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors, AIR 2006 SC 1748; Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Ors, AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 921; and Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India & Anr ,(2012) 3 SCC 178) B. In Prahlad Saran Gupta v. Bar Council of India & Anr, AIR 1997 SC 1338, this court observed that when the matter relates to a charge of professional mis-conduct which is quasi-criminal in nature, it requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. In that case the finding against the delinquent advocate was that he retained a sum of Rs. 15,000/- without sufficient justification from 4-4-1978 till 2-5-1978 and he deposited the amount in the Court on the latter date, without disbursing the same to his client. The said conduct was found by this Court as "not in consonance with the standards of professional ethics expected from a senior member of the profession". On the said fact- situation, this court imposed a punishment of reprimanding the advocate concerned.
"While evaluating the materials the authority should not altogether ignore the reputation in which the officer was held till recently. The maxim "Nemo Firut Repente Turpissimus" (no one becomes dishonest all on a sudden) is not unexceptional but still it is salutary guideline to judge human conduct, particularly in the field of Administrative Law. The authorities should not keep the eyes totally closed towards the overall estimation in which the delinquent officer was held in the recent past by those who were supervising him earlier. To dunk an officer into the puddle of "doubtful integrity" it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given material. Mere possibility is hardly sufficient to assume that it would have happened. There must be preponderance of probability for the reasonable man to entertain doubt regarding that possibility.
"The doctrine of `proof beyond doubt' has no application.
Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record would be necessary to reach a conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct." G. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the disciplinary proceedings are not a criminal trial, and in spite of the fact that the same are quasi-judicial and quasi- criminal, doctrine of proof beyond reasonable doubt, does not apply in such cases, but the principle of preponderance of probabilities would apply. The court has to see whether there is evidence on record to reach the conclusion that the delinquent had committed a misconduct. However, the said conclusion should be reached on the basis of test of what a prudent person would have done. The ratio of the judgment in Prahlad Saran Gupta (supra) does not apply in this case as the said case was of professional misconduct, and not of a delinquency by the employee.
"The principle that if some of the reasons relied on by a Tribunal for its conclusion turn out to be extraneous or otherwise unsustainable, its decision would be vitiated, applies to cases in which the conclusion is arrived at not on assessment of objective facts or evidence, but on subjective satisfaction.
(iii) The decisions referred to hereinabove highlights clearly, the parameter of the Court's power of judicial review of administrative action or decision. An order can be set-aside if it is based on extraneous grounds, or when there are no grounds at all for passing it or when the grounds are such that, no one can reasonably arrive at the opinion. The Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal but, it merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. The Court will not normally exercise its power of judicial review unless it is found that formation of belief by the statutory authority suffers from malafides, dishonest/corrupt practice. In other words, the authority must act in good faith. Neither the question as to whether there was sufficient evidence before the authority can be raised/examined, nor the question of re-appreciating the evidence to examine the correctness of the order under challenge. If there are sufficient grounds for passing an order, then even if one of them is found to be correct, and on its basis the order impugned can be passed, there is no occasion for the Court to interfere. The jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. This apart, even when some defect is found in the decision- making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary power with great caution keeping in mind the larger public interest and only when it comes to the conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene.
"In a case of such nature - indeed, in cases involving corruption - there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant." In Divisional Controller N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh, AIR 2006 SC 2730, this court held that the punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of corruption, the only punishment is dismissal.
Similar view has been reiterated in U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Vinod Kumar, (2008) 1 SCC 115; and U.P. State Road Transport Corp. v. Suresh Chand Sharma, (2010) 6 SCC 555.
9. Shri G.G. Jani, complainant-accused in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he had been an employee of the Oriental Insurance Co. at Mehasana, and at the relevant time, was facing a criminal case for mis-appropriation of money, and for producing up false documents. His case was initially tried by Shri Bhatt, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate in 1991 and he happened to give him long adjournments. Later when the appellant was hearing the case, only short adjournments were granted. Pankaj Pancholi, who was practicing as an advocate in the High Court, was engaged by him. Initially he had got the case adjourned twice, but he could not attend on the subsequent dates. As a result the appellant started examining the witnesses even in his advocate's absence. The appellant had instructed the complainant-accused to keep his advocate present, or to make an alternative arrangement. The case was fixed for 13.8.1993, and on that date, on the instructions of Shri Pancholi, Shri C.B. Gajjar, advocate came to the court. He got the complainant-accused to sign his vakalatnama. Shri C.B. Gajjar had told him not to worry as he was having very good relations with the appellant, and he would be able to get adjournments. He sought adjournment and the appellant fixed the case for 20.8.1993. Shri C.B. Gajjar called the complainant on 17.8.1993 near the chamber of the appellant in court compound at about 4 to 4.30 p.m. On reaching there he had met Shri C.B. Gajjar, who had told him that he would talk to Madam to decide the case in his favour and went to her chamber at about 5.00 p.m. The complainant remained standing outside in the lobby. The appellant was in her chamber. Shri C.B. Gajjar had then came out, after 15 minutes and told the complainant that appellant had demanded Rs.20,000/- to deliver the judgment in his favour. The complainant told him that it was a very high amount and requested Shri C.B. Gajjar to negotiate for a reasonable amount. Thereafter, Shri C.B. Gajjar again went to her chamber. At that time, the complainant was standing outside the door of the chamber. Shri Gajjar discussed his case with the appellant in a slow voice. Shri C.B. Gajjar came out and told the complainant that the amount was reasonable and he had to pay the same on 19.8.1993. The witness requested Shri Gajjar to fix the payment in instalments. Thus, it was agreed to make payment of the first instalment of Rs.5,000/- on 20.8.1993. However, the arrangement of money could not be made. The accused – complainant went to the office of the CBI on 19.8.1993 and filed a complaint.
After receiving the complaint from the complainant, the CBI tried to collect some evidence in the matter, and Shri C.B. Gajjar was invited to Yamuna Hotel, where the panchas and the CBI people went alongwith the complainant. Shri C.B. Gajjar came there, however, he got some doubt, therefore, he asked the complainant about the identification of the persons present there and left the place immediately. The complainant also deposed about some threat given to his wife at the behest of the appellant to withdraw the complaint.
"Question: I say that in the case of C.B.I. against you, as your advocate being your close relative, he was not able to take the fee from you and for that reason, Advocate Shri Gajjar was also not able to take fee from you. Therefore, with a view to obtain his fee from you, whether Shri Gajjar had demanded the same using the name of the magistrate?
"I went to Miss Jhala's court on 13.8.1993 in morning in Gautambhai Jani's case and after that never went there. I did not go into the Chamber of Miss Jhala on 17.8.1993. No talk has taken place with her for money at any time. …….Miss Jhala has not made any such demand." Shri C.B. Gajjar further admitted that the appellant was unmarried. Further, he admitted that he was called by the Vigilance Officer and he made the statement before him. He admitted his signature on the said statement and stated that it was correct.
12. The appellant examined herself in defence and deposed that her court was of the size of 50ft. x 30 ft. and chamber admeasured 22ft. x 14ft., and adjacent thereto, there was a chamber for Stenographer measuring 10ft. x 10ft. A person from outside could enter her chamber only through the said stenographer's room. Therefore, nobody outside the room could hear any conversation which could be had in the Magistrate chamber. Shri C.B. Gajjar, had appeared in her court in the case of the complainant-accused on 13.8.1993 only and sought adjournment. As the witness brought by CBI was present, she had given a short adjournment, and fixed the matter for 20.8.1993. She had not discussed anything with Shri Gajjar, advocate in her chamber for CBI case No. 5/1991, or any other case. There could be no talk about the demand of money for this case or any other case. Shri C.B. Gajjar had come only into the court. She had not seen Shri Gajjar on any other day, or on 17.8.1993. She had never met him other than on that date in court either in chamber or any other place. She was unmarried. She was not granting long adjournments in any case, and instead asking the parties to keep their witnesses ready.
"Now I turn to Shri Jani's statement before the Vigilance Officer which was recorded on 20.9.1993. In that statement he repeated the allegations made in his complaint dated 19.8.1993 to the CBI. He added that when Shri Gajjar went again into the chamber of Miss Jhala on 17.8.1993 to make a request for instalment, he stood in front of the door near the chamber so as to able to get an idea of the talk in the chamber. According to him, when Shri Gajjar talked about instalment Miss Jhala initially refused but when Shri Gajjar made a request, she agreed to give instalment of Rs.5,000/-. Shri Jani then gave the following account of what happened in Yamuna Restaurant on 28.8.1993.
However, the gravest and clinching circumstance against Miss Jhala is the fact that Shri Gajjar called Shri Jani to meet him outside her chamber at 4.45 p.m. on 17.8.1993 and demanded Rs.20,000/- after a meeting with her in her chamber no doubt both Miss Jhala and Shri Gajjar had denied this allegation. However, the tenor of Shri Gajjar's statement before the Vigilance Officer shows that the meeting in the Yamuna Hotel on 20.8.1993 was in pursuance of the previous talk between Shri Jani and Shri Gajjar. On 13.8.1993, Shri Gajjar had left the court after getting the case adjourned and there was no talk about any payment at that time. The meeting, therefore, took place after 13.8.1993 and before 19.8.1993 when Shri Jani sent to the CBI Officer and made the complaint. In the circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve Shri Jani's account of what happened on 17.8.1993 given in his complaint dated 19.8.1993.
"The fact that Shri Jani and Shri Gajjar had a meeting outside the chamber of the petitioner on 17.8.1993 at about 5 o'clock in the evening and that Shri Gajjar had gone inside the chamber of the petitioner twice and demanded money on her behalf from Shri Jani to decide the case in his favour has been believed by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the High Court in its recommendations. There are number of reasons why the said conclusions appear to be eminently just. At no point of time, the petitioner has alleged any animosity or ill-will between her and Shri Jani. Neither in the cross-examination of Shri Jani, nor in her deposition before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner has even remotely suggested any ill-will between them so as to falsely implicate the petitioner.
We have also recorded earlier that Shri Gajjar and Shri Jani had assembled outside the chamber of the petitioner on 17.8.1993 and Shri Gajjar had entered the chamber of the petitioner twice when the petitioner was in her chamber demanded an amount of Rs.20,000/- on behalf of the petitioner, there is absolutely no cross-examination of Shri Jani by the petitioner. Lack of challenge to this most crucial element of the evidence fully justified the findings of the competent authority….
…….When this is so, it was the duty of the petitioner to explain the said circumstance. The petitioner instead of satisfactorily explaining Shri Gajjar entering her chamber twice on 17.8.1993 has completely disowned and denied any such occurrence….. nor has the petitioner examined any witness to show that she was not in the chamber on the said day at 5 o'clock. Being court premises, surely there would have been number of witnesses readily available such as, her Bench Clerk, her Stenographer, etc. who would be sitting outside her chamber, her Peon and number of advocates who could watch for the fact that the petitioner was not inside her chamber at 5.00 p.m. on 17.8.1993. No such attempt was made by the petitioner to examine any witness. ……the petitioner's total denial of the incident and her unwillingness or inability to explain Shri Gajjar entering her chamber on two occasions and spending considerable time inside her chamber would, in our view, be extremely damaging. Shri Gajjar's entry in her chamber on 17.8.1993 on two occasions would assume further significance in view of the fact that Shri Jani's case was earlier fixed on 13.8.1993 and thereafter adjourned to 20.8.1993 and that there was no other case of Shri Gajjar on the board before the petitioner and that, therefore, Shri Gajjar had absolutely no occasion to meet the petitioner twice inside her chamber on 17.8.1993.
"We have noted that the Enquiry Officer has not believed the say of Shri Jani when he suggested that he could hear the conversation between the petitioner and Shri Gajjar when he was standing outside the chamber of the petitioner on 17.8.1993. The Enquiry Officer has also discarded the possibility of the petitioner having threatened Shri Jani. This, however, by itself would not be sufficient for us to hold that the findings of the Enquiry Officer and that of the High Court in its recommendations were based on no evidence. …….there was ample justification for coming to the conclusion that the charge of having demanded illegal gratification was proved against the petitioner.
Shri Jani in his statement at one place had stated that his case before the petitioner was fixed on 13.8.1993 and thereafter adjourned to 20.8.1993 and on 20.8.1993, it was again adjourned to 28.8.1993. We, therefore, to verify the dates, called for the calendar of the year 1993. The calendar of 1993 showed that August 28 was a 4th Saturday, and therefore a non- working day for the court.
17. The High Court has rightly disbelieved the statement of the complainant-accused that he could hear the conversation between the appellant and Shri Gajjar. The said evidence was also discarded by the Enquiry Officer. Further allegation that the appellant had threatened the said complainant-accused to withdraw the complaint was also found to be false. The entry of Shri C.B. Gajjar into the chamber of the appellant on 17.8.1993, was not corroborated by any other evidence. Shri C.B. Gajjar himself had also denied the same.
More so, the High Court has reached the conclusion by shifting the burden of proof of negative circumstances upon the appellant. The High Court has erred by holding that in respect of the incident dated 17.8.1993 i.e. demand of amount, it was the duty of the appellant to explain the said circumstance, and that instead of giving any satisfactory explanation in respect of entry of Shri C.B. Gajjar, she had completely disowned and denied any such occurrence. The onus was always on the department to prove the said circumstance. The court should have also taken note of the fact, that the matter was adjourned for 28.8.1993, and being a 4th Saturday, it was a holiday. The court further committed an error by holding, that the failure to challenge the most crucial element of the evidence, regarding the incident of 17.8.1993, in respect of a demand of bribe of Rs.20,000/- fully justified the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Again, the High Court shifted the onus to prove a negative circumstance on the appellant.
18. The appellant had not married at that point of time, as per her statement. Even this fact has been admitted by Shri C.B. Gajjar, Advocate. Given the above set of facts, the complainant is seen talking about appellant's husband for collecting money on her behalf. The High Court had failed to notice the above fact and had been making attempts to keep aside all such relevant factors in a case, where there was no direct evidence.
"…..There must, therefore, be no confusion between the two inquiries and it is only when the Government proceeds to hold a departmental enquiry for the purpose of inflicting on the government servant one of the three major punishment indicated in Article 311 that the government servant is entitled to the protection of that Article, nor prior to that." (Emphasis added) (See also: Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors. v.
Tarak Nath Ghosh, AIR 1971 SC 823).
"…..a preliminary inquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after issue of charge-sheet. The preliminary enquiry is only to find out whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. Once regular enquiry is held under the Rules, the preliminary enquiry loses its importance and, whether preliminary enquiry was held strictly in accordance with law or by observing principles of natural justice of nor, remains of no consequence.
26. "A prima facie case, does not mean a case proved to the hilt, but a case which can be said to be established, if the evidence which is led in support of the case were to be believed. While determining whether a prima facie case had been made out or not, the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led, it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence". (Vide: Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee, AIR 1958 SC 79) (See also: The Management of the Bangalore Woollen Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd. v. B. Dasappa, M.T. represented by the Binny Mills Labour Association, AIR 1960 SC 1352; State (Delhi Admn.) v. V.C. Shukla & Anr., AIR 1980 SC 1382; Dalpat Kumar & Anr. v. Prahlad Singh & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 276; and Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam, AIR 2005 SC 570).
28. The chargesheet was accompanied by the statement of imputation, list of witnesses and the list of documents. However, it did not say that so far as Charge No. 1 was concerned, the preliminary enquiry report or the evidence collected therein, would be used/relied upon against the appellant.
i) The High Court failed to appreciate that the appellant had not granted long adjournments to the accused-complainant as the appellant wanted to conclude the trial at the earliest. The case of accused- complainant which was taking its time, had suddenly gathered pace, thus, he would have naturally felt aggrieved by failing to notice it. The High Court erred in recording a finding that the complainant had no ill-will or motive to make any allegation against the appellant.
ii) The Enquiry Officer, the High Court on administrative side as well as on judicial side, committed a grave error in placing reliance on the statement of the complainant as well as of Shri C.B. Gajjar, Advocate, recorded in a preliminary enquiry. The preliminary enquiry and its report loses significance/importance, once the regular enquiry is initiated by issuing chargesheet to the delinquent. Thus, it was all in violation of the principles of natural justice.
iii) The High Court erred in shifting the onus of proving various negative circumstances as referred to hereinabove, upon the appellant who was delinquent in the enquiry.
iv) The onus lies on the department to prove the charge and it failed to examine any of the employee of the court, i.e., Stenographer, Bench Secretary or Peon attached to the office of the appellant for proving the entry of Shri Gajjar, Advocate in her chamber on 17.8.1993.
v) The complainant has been disbelieved by the Enquiry Officer as well as the High Court on various issues, particularly on the point of his personal hearing, the conversation between the appellant and Shri C.B. Gajjar, Advocate on 17.8.1993, when they met in the chamber.
vi) Similarly, the allegation of the complainant, that appellant had threatened him through his wife, forcing him to withdraw the complaint against her, has been disbelieved.
vii) The complainant as well as Shri C.B. Gajjar, Advocate had been talking about the appellant's husband having collecting the amount on behalf of the appellant, for deciding the cases, though at that point of time, she was unmarried.
viii) There is nothing on record to show that the appellant whose defence has been disbelieved in toto, had ever been given any adverse entry in her ACRs, or punished earlier in any enquiry. While she has been punished solely on uncorroborated statement of an accused facing trial for misappropriation.
…………………………….………….......................J. (Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN) ………………….…………….................................. J. (FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA) New Delhi, March 18, 2013.


text:
Q: Is Node.js Array.map() asynchronous? Can I count on nodeIDs mapping is completed every time doSomething() is called?
nodeIDs = $.map(nodeIDs, function(n){
    return n.match(/\d+$/);
});
doSomething(nodeIDs);

I thought all callbacks in node.js are asynchronous?  I did read an article on general programming that callback could be synchronous but I am not sure about node.js?

A: JavaScript is also a functional programming language. What you have here is a «higher order function», a function which takes a function as a parameter. Higher order functions are synchronous (but see note below).
Sources:

*

*Functional Programming

*Higher order functions in JavaScript
map() is a typical example of a higher order function. It takes a function and applies it to all elements of an array. The definition sounds very «functional». This function is also not provided by Node. It is documented by MDN Array.prototype.map() and specified by ECMAScript 5.1.
To answer your question: Yes, doSomething(nodeIDs) is called after all elements have been applied.

Note: The higher order function is a concept of functional programming. JavaScript is functional, but also deeply seated in the practicality of executing code inside a browser or on the server. I would say that for example setTimeout() is not a higher order function even if it takes a function as a parameter because setTimeout() is not really purely functional because it uses time. Pure functionality is timeless. For example the result of map() doesn't depend on time. And that's what this question is really about. If something doesn't depend on time you execute it synchronously. Problem solved.

Thanks to Simon for challenging the definition of the higher order function in JavaScript.

A: import the async module to have an asynchronous 'map' method
var async = require('async');

var arr = ['1','2'];
async.map(arr, getInfo, function (e, r) {
  console.log(r);
});

function getInfo(name, callback) {
  setTimeout(function() {
    callback(null, name + 'new');
  }, 1000);
}

A: This function is synchronous - otherwise it couldn't return the result of the map operation.
Any callbacks that might take longer time (mainly due to IO) are asynchronous in nodejs - unless the method is explicitely marked as being synchronous (such as fs.readFileSync - but that doesn't use a callback). You probably confused that somehow.

A: Yes, .map is synchronous. "Callback" does not imply "asynchronous".

A: YES, map function is asynchronous and is part of ECMAScript.
NodeJS uses map from that definition.
Try running this code to see it in action.

const array = ['first','second']

function name(params) {
  setTimeout(
    () => console.log('name: ' + params),
    5000
  );
}

console.log('wait for 5 seconds')
array.map(v => {
  name(v)
})

A: There is useful lib awaiting. And map will help you.

A: use a forof (is synchronous):
let arr = ['fizz', 'buzz']
//example
    for (const item of arr) {
   //this Examp_func returns array
     console.log((await Examp_func(item )).length);
    }

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Talk about untapped niches. There were blogs for dog lovers and blogs for photography aficionados, but – as Suzanne Donaldson realized – there was no blog for people who were both. So mrssizzle.com was born, a curated blog founded and launched earlier this month by Donaldson, with training tips, anecdotes, information on dog rescue organizations, and great pictures, some of them by people you may have heard of.
The former executive photo editor of Glamour magazine, art and photography editor of Interview magazine, and director of Luhring Augustine Gallery, among other positions, Donaldson knows a thing or two about photography. But she's also fairly passionate about dogs, including her own, Edie and Clair. Art and photography folks who have contributed photos of their dogs include Inez & Vinoodh, William Wegman, and Patrick Demarchelier, among many others. Donaldson may have discriminating taste, but she does not discriminate: Brigitte Lacombe sent a picture of her studio cat, and Cindy Sherman sent some pictures of her pet parrot, Mister Frieda.


'Jilipir pyach' is a Bengali phrase. Translated literally it refers to the whorls of the Indian sweet jalebi, or jilipi in Bengali. Idiomatically it refers to devious people, who are not transparent or clean. They are evil, Machiavellian and scheming. Nothing is pure or simple about them. The sort of characters you would find in the loud, over the top, garish soaps on Indian television. As far away as possible from the gentleman I am going to write about.
There is a sweet shop in the lane behind Laxmi Building at Fort. A North Indian sweet shop. Vidya Dairy Farm. I pass it by everyday as I return to work from lunch. There is an elderly gentleman outside the shop making fresh, colourful jalebis in a pan of hot bubbling oil. You can't miss him. He catches your eye. Is this intentional? Like the old ladies who sit outside traditional Turkish restaurants making bread? Carefully stationed to catch the tourist's eye? Was he a billboard too? I don't think so. But he sure did fascinate me every time I passed by.
I was returning from lunch at Cafe Ideal Corner. I have said this before and will say it again. They make the best dhansak, the signature Parsi dish, in town. After ignoring the jalebis for many days, I gave in today. I stopped at the sweet shop and asked for a plate of jalebis. 50 g, about 6 to 7 jalebis for Rs 7 ( 0.2 USD). Looks weren't deceptive. The jalebis were as juicy, sensuous, tempting and rapturous as they looked. (In case my mom is reading this, I didn't finish the whole plate, had a green tea after that and worked out in the gym for about 45 minutes in the evening).
I went up to gentleman making the jalebis. He had a voice which was soft and demure for someone with such a swarthy white moustache.
"Even I am not hundred." There was a twinkle in his eyes.
"But your moustache is so white."
"Nowadays even kids have white hair"
Well that did make me feel better about my greying side burns. Kids!
And so we begun talking. He said his name was 'Ustaad' or expert. Years of making jalebis had made him nameless I guess as he blended into the venerable stone walls of the buildings around him. The owner, sitting at the counter, told me that the shop has forty years old and started by the owner's father.
Ustaad said that he was making jalebis for more than thirty years. Twenty five of those in Vidya Dairy Farm where he worked now. He was from Allahabad. Home to India's biggest ever film hero, Amitabh Bachchan. But hold on. He asked me where I was from. Broke into a smile when I said Calcutta. He had studied in Sutanati School at a Burrabazar at Calcutta! He asked me where I lived in Calcutta. He nodded in recognition when I said 'Tollygunge'. I think he heard 'Ballygunge' though. Unlikely that he would have heard of Tollygunge in his times. We mulled about the differences in Bengali jilipi (pale yellow, chubby) versus the North Indian jalebi (orange, crisp). The other guys in the shop listening to us with wonder. On asking he said he preferred Calcutta as a city to Mumbai. Calcutta of a black and white era I guess. Of a time when Uttam Kumar wore a tuxedo and manned the desks of Chowringhee.
Ustaad didn't bat an eyelid as I took photographs. He went about his work and answered my questions while I clicked away. He would occasionally look straight into the camera. And why wouldn't he? He was the most photogenic person that I have ever come across. He was a star and he knew it. He had featured in the 'Times'. He made me go into the shop and see the laminated copy of the newspaper which featured the shop. Yes, there he was. Our ustaad smiling at us from the newspaper.
He asked me if I could give him printouts. I tried to explain the concepts of digital cameras and blogs to him. He smiled a toothy smile. Made you feel like a little child year old waiting to sit on your favourite grandpa's lap. And why not, after all my late grandfather, used to get jilipis for me when he used to visit me on weekends when I was about eight living at Dhakuria at Calcutta.
As I was about to leave the owner offered me another plate of jalebi. I protested. I was full. Both he and his helper insisted. Then I looked at Ustad and his eager eyes. I bit into a jalebi. I broke into a big smile.
The trio beamed. Just as Muzaffar, the bhajiyawala, did when he saw me yesterday. And the bearded the guy at the counter of Fountain Plaza when a few minutes before that. And as did Parvez when I dropped in at Ideal Corner for lunch today.
How am I ever going to leave Fort?
the pictures are aWESUM!!all apna indian crowd and cute lill shops!!
miss the jalebi at muzaffarpur(bihar), orange in colour and little sour, it was amazing. there is shop, jalebiwala in chandnichowk, if in delhi, please try it, people say its almpst 100 yrs old. ll try to get a pic of the jalebis.
I love jalebis! Especially with kachoris & aaloo sabzi. I prefer the north Indian jalebis to the Bong ones, though. Yumm!
Thats an awesome post, feel like having some jalebis..yumm..
I'm loving your Fort posts not just for the food but the people. It's heartwarming to hear that there are so many humble, generous and openhearted people lurking on every street corner.
I have been a follower of your blog from quite sometime and all your post related to kolkata or giving the glimpse of the city really make me nostalgic as i have spent very important years of my life in the city.
Knife Uncle.. this is just getting better and better. You are in this great space. Just keep going.. what are we all going to do when they move you from Fort. Can we write a petition to your boss. Also Allahabad walla jalebi walla is awesome. And dude- the pics kya baat hai. they are seriously good.
@Krishna, would love to try them...anyone?
ohhhhhh i MISS bombay. you just have to leave fort.