Back
G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
State Of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Nand Kishore Shukla – Respondent
Key Points: - The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against the Allahabad High Court's order setting aside the removal of a government servant from service (!) (!) . - A government servant was removed from service after an inquiry found five charges proved against him (!) . - The respondent did not cooperate in the inquiry, leading to certain charges not being fully investigated [1000003990001]. - Rule 24 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, governs transactions of movable and immovable property by government servants (!) . - Rule 24(1) requires previous knowledge of the appropriate authority for acquiring or disposing of immovable property, and previous sanction if the transaction is not through a regular dealer (!) (!) . - The court is not a court of appeal and cannot go into the question of the imposition or proportionality of punishment by the disciplinary authority [1000003990003]. - If at least one charge is proved and sufficient for imposing a penalty, the court would be reluctant to interfere with that part of the order [1000003990003]. - The order of removal did not cast a stigma on the respondent [1000003990003]. - The High Court was wrong in setting aside the order of removal [1000003990003] (!) . - Liberty is given to the respondent to approach the Government regarding unpaid subsistence allowance during suspension [1000003990004].
ORDER
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Allahabad High Court. Lucknow Bench made on September 5, 1991 in W.P. No. 9550 of 1989. The respondent had challenged the order of his removal from service. He was appointed on December 4, 1973 as a Clerk in the Collectorate, Hardoi on temporary basis. He was removed from service in the year 1977 and, ultimately, by orders of the Court he was reinstated in the service on July 12, 1984. By proceedings dated May 25, 1987, he was kept under suspension on disciplinary grounds and enquiry was conducted in that behalf. Though opportunities were given to the respondent, he did not avail it. He had asked for production of 21 witnesses for cross-examination. The enquiry officer considered that nine witnesses were relevant in respect of charges and that respondent was called upon to cross-examine those witnesses but respondent had not chosen to cross-examine those witnesses. Consequently by proceedings dated December 5, 1987, the enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the 5 charges were proved against the respondent and recommended for his dismissal from servi
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
