SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 880

D.P.WADHWA, K.RAMASWAMY
Bir Singh Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent was directed to produce the record and to file the counter; but neither counter has been filed nor the record has been produced. In these circumstances, we are constrained to proceed on the basis of the material on record.

3. The appellant, while he was working as Executive Engineer, was asked by the Superintending Engineer to carry out the visual inspection of the work executed at Sonepat Drainage Division on April 30, 1989. He carried on the same on May 2, 1989 and submitted the report. Subsequently, a case was registered against the contractors and other employees. On the basis of subsequent report submitted by Shri O.P. Vij, an FIR was registered on August 10, 1989 against the officers connected with the job. Thereafter, the entire staff comprising of 95 persons in Karnal Drainage Circle, was put under suspension in April 1990. On account thereof, the appellant was also kept under suspension for giving the report of visual inspection viz-a-vis the execution of the work. After his reinstatement, he was due for promotion but the same was not given, while his juniors were promoted. Consequently, he challenged his non-cons




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top