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

2000 Supreme(Gau) 121

P.C.PHUKAN
Dinesh Chandra Ray – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.K.Sharma, M.K.Choudhary, P.K.Tiwari

I have heard Mr. BK Sharma, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, as well as Mr. Das, learned Govt Advocate appearing for the State-respondents. I have also perused the records of the case.

2. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 28.4.90 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar dismissing him from service and also the order dated 24.7.91 passed by the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division vide Memo No. PAP.4/90/57 and also the order dated 28.10.91 passed by the Assam Administrative Tribunal rejecting the petitioner's appeal petition.

3. Petitioner's case in brief is that he was appointed as a Process Server in the Gosaigaon Tehsil Office in the Kokrajhar District wef 27.7.67. He was placed under suspension by the SDO (C), Kokrajhar by order dated 14.7.82 with immediate effect. He was also served with a show cause notice dated 20.3.84 by the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar. Charges were framed against him issuing the statements of allegations and he was called upon to submit his written statement of defence within 10 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice. The a














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