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

2009 Supreme(All) 2699

PRADEEP KANT, RITU RAJ AWASTHI
UNION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
SATYENDRA KUMAR SAHAI – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Anil Srivastava for the Petitioners; Abdul Moin for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—Notice on behalf of the respondents has been accepted by Sri Abdul Moin.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Anil Srivastava, Sri Abdul Moin for the respondents and perused the record.

3. With the consent of the parties’ counsel, the petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

4. The respondent, a Booking Clerk in the Railways, who was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the charge of misappropriation of government funds, has been inflicted the punishment of removal from service, with recovery of an amount of Rs. 3.5 lacs.

5. Against the order of punishment, the respondent preferred the Original Application No. 206 of 1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of on 2.2.2003 with a direction that the pending enquiry be completed within a period of four months.

6. The enquiry could be completed in a little period of more than four months but less than five months. The punishment order became the subject matter of challenge in the present Original Application, in which the punishment order has been set aside by the Tribunal mainly on the following two counts :

(i) the order of punishment was not pa













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