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

2021 Supreme(MP) 206

SANJAY DWIVEDI
Chandramani Mishra (Dr. ) – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Sanjay K. Agrawal for petitioner;
Jubin Prasad, Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.

ORDER

1. Vide order dated 1.9.2020, the respondents/State were granted time to file return, failing which their right to file return shall stand forfeited automatically. Despite that, learned Panel Lawyer is again seeking time to file return, whereas learned counsel for the petitioner submits that return of the respondents is not required in the matter because he is confining his arguments to the legal aspect involved in the matter, therefore, this petition may be heard on the basis of facts mentioned in the petition itself.

2. Considering the aforesaid, this petition is heard finally.

3. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 11.7.2013 (Annexure-P/4) and 12.5.2017 (Annexure-P/7). Vide order dated 11.7.2013 (Annexure-P/4), the respondents inflicted minor penalty of withholding of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect upon the petitioner and vide order dated dated 12.5.2017 (Annexure-P/7), the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner wherein he had assailed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

4. For resolving

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