Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MINI PUSHKARNA
Tej Singh – Appellant
Versus
Food Corporation of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds of the penalty imposed on the petitioner (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. review and appellate procedures followed (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. petitioner's defense against accusations and penalties (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. court's scrutiny of evidence and findings (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. evaluation of procedural compliance and responsibilities (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. subsequent guidelines and their implications (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. principles of equality in disciplinary actions (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 8. decision on the penalties imposed (Para 38) |
| 9. final verdict and order of the court (Para 39) |
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/ Hybrid Hearing]
Mini Pushkarna, J. (ORAL):
1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order of penalty dated 18.01.2003 passed by the Senior Regional Manager, the disciplinary authority, thereby imposing penalty of censure on the petitioner and recovery of Rs.64,756/- from the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the order dated 10.08.2004 passed by the Zonal Manager (North), the Appellate Authority, thereby rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
