Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN
Ram Pratap Yadav, S/o Shri Suraj Bhan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds of petition and disciplinary inquiry. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. nature of allegations against the petitioner. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments on the validity of proceedings. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's observations on procedures followed. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. judicial review principles and simultaneous proceedings. (Para 13) |
| 6. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 14) |
Order :
SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. The present petition is filed with the following prayers:-
i. to quash the action of the respondents by which the punishment order dated 30.10.2019 which is communicate vide order dated07.11.2019.
ii. to further direction directing the respondent to recall or otherwise set- aside the entire disciplinary proceeding including the charge-sheet dated 17.09.2013, order of the disciplinary authority dated 30.10.2019 and issued the whole consequential and retiral benefit which is not released in the garb of enquiry along with interest.
iii. Other order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner with costs;
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was rendering services on the post of I
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
