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

2013 Supreme(MP) 1059

SUJOY PAUL
Kamlesh Korku Aadiwasi – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: D.K. Katare
For the Respondent/State:Pravin Newaskar, Deputy Government Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Petitioner has challenged the appellate order dated 5.10.2012 (Annexure P/1). The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 23.4.2010 (Annexure P/8). She filed reply to the said charge sheet. The department appointed an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer in his report dated 29.9.2011 found the charges as proved. The report was furnished to the petitioner and his representation was obtained. Thereafter the disciplinary authority by Annexure P/15 dated 9.2.2012 inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service. Against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Revenue Division. The said authority by impugned order dated 5.10.2012 (Annexure P/1) partly allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Collector dated 9.2.2012 and remitted the matter back to the Collector to conduct further enquiry by giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner.

2. Criticizing the said order, Shri D.K. Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority has no power to remit the matter back. In support of this, he relied on (2002) 10 SCC 471 Union of India vs. K.D.Pandey and another; (2007) 11 SCC 517, Kanailal Bera vs. Union




















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