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

2013 Supreme(All) 23

RAJIV SHARMA, DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA
NARESH SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

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.


































































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