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

2021 Supreme(All) 736

RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN
Satish Kumar Sonker – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ajeet Srivastav.
For the Respondent: Ramesh Chandra Pandey.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri. Ajeet Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri. Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 5 and 6.

2. The order under challenge is the suspension order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, District-Raebareli placing the petitioner under suspension.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid suspension order mainly on two grounds. Firstly, this suspension order has been issued neither in contemplation of the departmental enquiry nor pending departmental enquiry and the law is trite on the point that an employee may be placed under suspension if there is pending departmental enquiry or in contemplation of departmental enquiry and there may not be other eventuality for placing under suspension. The next ground to assail the impugned suspension order is that more than one year and nine months period have already passed since the date of passing the suspension order but neither any charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner nor any enquiry has been contemplated.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has last

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