Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM ASHARE SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Ashare Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 26303 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10373 (4 June 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the suspension order dated 30.3.2007.

A bare perusal of the suspension order shows that as many as 15 serious charges have been levelled against the petitioner. In view of the seriousness of the charges the suspension order does not deserve to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution.      

The suspension order also indicates that the District Panchayat Raj Officer shall send the charge-sheet for approval to the Additional Director of Panchayat Raj who shall appoint an Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that till date the Enquiry Officer has not been appointed.

Learned Standing Counsel points out that the suspension order was passed as far back as on 30.3.2007 and in all likelihood the charge-sheet must have been served upon the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer must have also been appointed and in case that has not been done, necessary steps shall be taken immediately so that the charge-sheet is served upon the petitioner and an Enqiury Officer is also appointed.

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the respondents have not issued any charge-sheet to the petitioner and have not appointed an Enquiry Officer, they shall do so within two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before the Director Panchayat Raj. Needless to say that the petitioner shall co-operate in the enquiry which may be concluded preferably within a period of four months.

Dt/- 4.6.2007

Sharma/26303


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.