HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J
R.Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Chairman -cum- Disciplinary Authority – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's counsel argues negligence (Para 5) |
| 2. writ petition dismissed (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER
2. It was thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority viz., the Chairman of the Pallavan Grama Bank, passed an order dated 29.04.2011, imposing the punishment of “ Compulsory Retirement ” under the Regulation 39(1)(b)(iii) of Pallavan Grama Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 , while treating the period of suspension as 'suspension'. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Directors on 03.06.2011. The said appeal was considered by the Board of Directors and by an order dated 29.08.2011, the original order of punishment dated 29.04.2011 was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. It is aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, dated 29.04.2011 and 29.08.2011 respectively, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
4. Heard Mr.D.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Pradeep, learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the entire material on record.
5.2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner,
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.