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

2013 Supreme(All) 2892

SUDHIR AGARWAL
MUNNI DEVI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
N.D. Shukla for the Petitioner; C.S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri N.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. The petitioner was imposed major penalty of dismissal by means of order order dated 19.2.2010 and thereafter her appeal was also dismissed by order dated 5.10.2010.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned orders on the ground that dismissal was a major penalty but no oral inquiry was held and after the petitioner submitted reply to charge-sheet, the Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report and thereafter order of punishment has been passed, therefore, it is wholly illegal and in utter violation of principle of natural justice and by ignoring Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rule, 1999”) and the same is liable to be set aside.

4. In the counter-affidavit, with respect to question, whether any oral inquiry was held or not, a vague stand was taken by respondents, though petitioner has specifically averred in paras 36 and onwards of the writ petition that no oral inquiry was held. It is in these circumstances, this Court passed follow
















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