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

2005 Supreme(SC) 672

H.K.SEMA, TARUN CHATTERJEE
SUDESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


ORDER

1. Heard Ms Madhusmita Bora, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr Ajay Siwach, learned counsel for the respondents, at length.

2. The appellant was recruited as Constable to the Haryana Police Service on 31-7-1985. He was promoted as Head Constable on 11-7-1992. At the relevant time, he was posted in the Executive Clerical Branch at Gurgaon. On the basis of a complaint said to have been lodged by one Japanese national, Mr Kenichi Tanaka, an investigation was carried out by Deputy Superintendent of police and on that basis, the services of the appellant were a terminated by resorting to the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, dispensing with the inquiry. The appellant challenged the order of dismissal before the disciplinary authority, which was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, he filed an appeal before the disciplinary appellate authority which was also dismissed. The High Court, by the impugned order, also dismissed the writ petition preferred by him. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

3. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that no reasons much less sufficient reasons have been disclosed in the impugned order as to why



















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