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

2006 Supreme(Pat) 948

SHEEMA ALI KHAN, NARAYAN ROY
Dinesh Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


Judgment

1. Heard Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to S.C. 20 for the respondents and also considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.

2. This writ application is directed against the order of punishment as contained in Annexure 7 issued vide memo no. 2332 dated 7.7.1999 and also the appellate order. By the orders impugns the petitioner having been found guilty for the charges levelled against him in a departmental proceeding, has been punished in the following terms:

(i) Censure,

(ii) Stoppage of one annual increment

(iii) He will not get anything during the suspension period save and except the subsistence allowance already paid.

It is contended by Mr. Chittranjan Sinha that the order impugned has been issued without following the procedures of law and without applying the principles of natural justice inasmuch as that neither copy of the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner nor an opportunity was given by way of a separate show cause for punishment no. (iii) as required under the provisions of Rule 97 (3) of the Bihar Service Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code, it is further submitted by Mr. Sinha








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