RAJIV SHARMA, DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA
NARESH SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent
By the Court.—Heard Sri S.K. Kalia, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sameer Kalia appearing for the petitioner and Sri Alok Sinha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
2. Removal/dismissal/termination or compulsory retirement from service is treated as a calamity by a person against whom such an order is passed and as such, it is always questioned before a Court of law. In the present case, the authority, which was dispensing justice to others, is, today before us questioning the validity and correctness of the resolution passed by the Full Court and the order of removal issued by the State Government apart from other orders.
3. At the outset, it is relevant to point out that initially the petitioner in the instant writ petition claimed for quashing the resolution of the Full Court dated 16.5.2009, whereby the Full Court resolved to remove the petitioner from service. The petitioner has also inter alia prayed for quashing of orders dated 25.5.2009 and 26.5.2009 passed by the District Judge, Baduan divesting the petitioner from judicial functioning and withdrawing cases from his Court, pursuant to the High Court’s confidential D.O. No. 258/AR(S)/2009, dated 25.5.2009.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.