C.HARI SHANKAR
Paresh Nath Sharma – Appellant
Versus
UOI – Respondent
C. Hari Shankar, J.
1. Disciplinary proceedings, initiated against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 4th May, 2001 proceeded, via Inquiry Report dated 26th June, 2002, to their culmination by way of order dated 9th December, 2002, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service, and his gratuity forfeited. An application, filed by the petitioner, seeking review of the said decision, was also dismissed, vide order dated 2nd September, 2003. The petitioner prays that the Inquiry Report dated 26th June, 2002, the order dated 9th December, 2002 and the order dated 2nd September, 2003, be quashed and set-aside.
2. On 10th April, 1995, the petitioner was appointed Director (Finance) in the office of respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred as “MMTC”), for a tenure of five years. The said tenure expired on 14th May, 2000. A selection board recommended re-appointment of the petitioner for five more years, pending which the petitioner was continued as Director (Finance) vide order dated 13th November, 2000. As, in the interregnum, a preliminary inquiry was conducted, into certain complaints against the petitioner, this second appointment never fructified.
3. On 4th May, 2001, a c
Bank of India v. Mohd. Nizamuddin
Baldev Singh Gandhi v. State of Punjab
Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regl. Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik
Govt. of T.N. v. K.N. Ramamurthy
Inspector Prem Chand v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Laws v. London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers
M.M. Malhotra v. Union of India
P.H. Kalyani v. Air France, Calcutta
Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. Collector
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.