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

1955 Supreme(Cal) 83

SINHA
AMIYA PROSAD DAS GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT AND SUPPLY – Respondent


SINHA, J.

( 1 ) THE facts in this case are shortly as follows:

( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Inspector Assessor on 1-7-1951 by the Director of Procurement and Supply. On 25-8-1952 he was served with a charge-sheet. In that charge-sheet, there were six charges, one of which was that he had refused to make over charge of the Procurement godown to another officer, although he was tinder orders of transfer. It was said that he had refused to make over charge on the plea that the relevant order of the authorities concerned had not, been received by him, or shown to him. The next charge was that he left station without prior permission of the higher authorities. There were other charges, for example, that he had not properly exerted himself in the discharge of his duties that he left for Calcutta without taking leave end that he was in the habit of leaving station frequently without prior permission he was directed to explain why he should not be dismissed, discharged or removed from service or otherwise suitably punished. The charge-sheet was signed by the Regional Controller of Procurement and Supply, Region III, Calcutta, and the petitioner was called upon to submit his expla










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