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

2010 Supreme(Pat) 44

JYOTI SARAN
Baidya Nath Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


JUDGEMENT

1. Heard Mr. Rupak Kumar for the petitioner, Mr. Mahesh Prasad, learned S.C.-8 and Mr. L.P.K. Rajgriahar for the Accountant General.

2. With the consent of the parties this matter has been taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

3. The petitioner who retired from the post of Junior Engineer with effect from 31.12.2003 has filed the writ petition for payment of his retiral benefits as detailed in paragraph-1 of the writ petition.

4. The facts briefly stated are that a disciplinary proceedings was initiated against one Devendra Prasad Sinha, Assistant Engineer for not furnishing the accounts relating to the advances given to four Junior Engineers including the present petitioner. Evidence of the same is present in Memo No. 1773 dated 14.8.1992 (Annexure-9). Subsequent thereto a separate proceeding was also initiated against the present petitioner vide Memo No. 1645 dated 5.4.2002 (Annexure-14) whereby charges were served upon the petitioner. Whereas charge no. 1 indicted the petitioner of not having submitted timely accounts with regard to an advance of Rs. 4,65,878/- as a result whereof it could not be adjusted in the divisional accounts, charge no. 2 contained all



















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