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

2002 Supreme(AP) 601

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, V.ESWARAIAH
N. VEERRAJU – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Endowments, A. P. , Hydrabad – Respondent


B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner while workirtg as Deputy executive Engineer in the Endowments department at Kakinada was subjected to a raid by the officials of the Anti-Corruption bureau on 4-7-1997. Certain documents pertaining to movable and immovable properties were seized from the residence of the petitioner. It is not necessary to notice the details of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Suffice it to notice that the anti-Corruption Bureau found the petitioner to have acquired disproportionate assets.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was transferred from Kakinada to Simhachalam of visakhapatnam District with effect from 13-6-1998.

( 3 ) THE Anti-Corruption Bureau issued notice to the petitioner on 7-11-1998 requiring his explanation in the matter for having assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The petitioner accordingly submitted his explanation, inter alia denying the allegations levelled against him. It is also not necessary to notice the details of explanation submitted by the petitioner in this regard. The Government issued proceedings dated 9-7-2001 asking the petitioner to submit a written statement to the articles of charges to which the
















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