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

2008 Supreme(All) 383

SUSHIL HARKAULI, SUDHIR AGARWAL
SALAHUDDIN ANSARI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


JUDGMENT

By the Court.—Aggrieved by the orders dated 5.8.2000 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), 08.08.2000 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and 19.12.2000 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), whereby certain minor punishments have been imposed upon the petitioner, the petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by means of the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the same. He has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the said orders.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in Rural Engineering Services on 2.8.1972 and was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis on 1.5.1981 whereat he was regularised vide order dated 16.4.1995. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 18.9.1998 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) which contains four charges of non-observance of the procedure prescribed under the Financial Handbook for awarding contract during the period of 1994-95 to 1996-97 when he was working as Executive Engineer to Rural Engineering Services, Gonda, for the period 1994-95 when he wa

















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