Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J
K.S.S.Prasad – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Registrar (Dairying) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's notice of enquiry and procedural issues. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. inquiry under section 87 requires procedural integrity. (Para 3) |
| 3. directions for fresh consideration with established timelines. (Para 4) |
| 4. final decision and closure of miscellaneous petition. (Para 5) |
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner is that he had received a notice of enquiry dated 29.09.2004 from the 1st respondent calling upon him to appear for enquiry at 11 AM on 18.10.2004 at the office of the 1st respondent. However, the impugned order has been passed prior to the date of enquiry i.e., on 12.10.2004. Therefore, the order has been passed without hearing the petitioner and the surcharge proceedings itself has to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the 1st respondent for a fresh consideration.
2. Consequently, the order passed in CMA(CS).No.19 of 2007 and the order of the 1st respondent in No.1/2004-2005/E dated 12.10.2004 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration.
3. It is made clear that while rehearing the surcharge proceedings the Enquiry Officer shall ensure strict compliance of the guidelines which has been laid down by this
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
