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

2015 Supreme(All) 253

SUNEET KUMAR
MUSTAQ AHMAD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Mahendra Singh, Ajay Sengar, R.B. Maurya and Vikas Goswami for the Petitioner; C.S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Mahendra Singh assisted by Sri Ajay Sengar learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was working as a Follower in the civil police, the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 (1999 Rules), alleging therein that the petitioner had absented without permission for period of 11 days between 12.3.2009 and 10.4.2009. The petitioner in reply to the charge-sheet submitted that the petitioner was not well, was taking treatment and on recovering from illness, the petitioner reported for duty. The Enquiry Officer in enquiry report dated 30.12.2009 proposed the penalty of dismissal for unauthorised absence and forfeiture of pay for the days absent from duty on the principle of no work no pay. The disciplinary authority issued a show-cause notice on 25.1.2010 alongwith copy of the enquiry report to which the petitioner replied on 9.2.2010. The disciplinary authority on considering the reply and other material available on record, did not accept the explanation, which was based on the medical certificate,





























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