IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J.Munir
Rajesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
J.J. Munir, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Cane Commissioner and Chairman, State Cane Services Authority, U.P., Lucknow, dated 11.03.2022, awarding the petitioner the penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect, directing proportionate recovery of the loss sustained by the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Limited, Shamli, and censuring him, all after holding disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner has further challenged the appellate order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Cane and Sugar, U.P., Lucknow, dismissing his appeal and affirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority.
2. The petitioner was posted as a Cashier with the Cane Cooperative Development Society, Thana Bhawan, District Shamli w.e.f. 03.10.2018. The petitioner's conditions of service are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Cane Co-operative Service Regulations, 1975 (for short, ‘the Regulations of 1975’), as amended from time to time. The petitioner was issued a charge- sheet dated 28.12.2020 by the Deputy Cane Commissioner, Moradabad, who was nominated as the Inquiry Officer, carrying the following charges:

3. The petitioner filed his reply, denying th
State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha
Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others
State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh
State of U.P. and another v. Kishori Lal and another
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.