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

2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 41964

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J
R.Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Chairman -cum- Disciplinary Authority – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr.D.Muthukumar for Petitioner, Mr.K.Pradeep for Respondents

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,

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