HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Parimal R. Dave – Appellant
Versus
State Bank Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of present petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the termination of service dated 13.7.2007 passed by respondent No. 2- Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by respondent No. 3- Appellate Authority in Appeal by order dated 5.2.2008, and prayed, inter alia, that:-
(b) Your Lordships be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order holding that the order of the termination of service Dt.13-07-2007 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and confirmed by the respondent No. 3 in appeal by order Dt.05-02-2008 are bad in law, unconstitutional, illegal and those be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all the consequential benefits.
(c) Your Lordships be pleased to order that the operation and implementation of the order of the termination of service Dt.13-07-2007 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and confirmed by the respondent No. 3 in appeal by order Dt.05-02-2008 be suspended pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition and the petitioner be taken b
A.S. Sindhi vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2000 (3) G.L.H. 563
State Bank of India and another vs. Bela Bagchi and others reported in (2005) 7 SCC 435
State of Karnataka and another vs. N. Gangaraj reported in (2020) 3 SCC 423
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Suresh Chand Sharma reported in (2010) 6 SCC 555
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.