Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR, J
Rajani Kant Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of disciplinary action (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's contention on charges (Para 4) |
| 3. disciplinary authority's reasoning (Para 5) |
| 4. petitioner's superannuation (Para 6) |
| 5. state's defense on procedure (Para 7) |
| 6. explanation of rule 43(a) (Para 8) |
| 7. distinction between rules 43(a) and 43(b) (Para 9) |
| 8. court's ruling on applicability (Para 10) |
| 9. disciplinary authority's failure (Para 11) |
| 10. setting aside of orders (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-02-2025
Heard Mr. Sarveshwar Tiwary, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, learned Advocate for the State.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the notification, as contained in Memo No. 2353 dated 19.08.2019, issued by the respondent no.3, whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of 10% monthly deduction from his pension till five years. The review application preferred against the order of the disciplinary authority also came to be rejected by the notification as contained in Memo No. 382 dated 21.01.2020, which also put to challenge by filing an Interlocutory Application, bearing I.A. No. 1 of 2024.
3. The short facts, which led to filing of the present writ petit
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
