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

2020 Supreme(Jhk) 844

DEEPAK ROSHAN
Anil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. A. Singh, Adv

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside the resolution as contained in Memo No. 5205 dated 10.06.2015 (Annexure-9) issued under the signature of Respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been found guilty in the departmental proceeding and thereupon he has been inflicted punishment of Censor and Stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect.

3. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the enquiry report (Annexure-5) and contended that the petitioner has been punished by considering charge no. I and III as proved, whereas the Inquiry Officer has categorically given benefit of doubt with respect to the said charges. He further draws attention towards the second show cause notice issued to the petitioner wherein it has been stated that charge no. I and III have been proved, admittedly, which is an error apparent on record.

4. Learned counsel further draws attention of this Court by referring Annexure-6 which is an internal opinion/ enquiry which had been done behind back of the petitioner and in that r

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