Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRADIP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pradip Kumar Srivastava v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 28043 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10710 (22 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'ble Vineet Saran, J.

The petitioner is a Sah Samanyak (Assistant Teacher). By an order dated 8.5.2007 passed by District Basic Education Officer the petitioner is said to have been placed under suspension. It is the categorical case of the petitioner that he has worked till 14.6.2007 on which date the impugned order dated 8.5.2007 was served. It has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed in back date. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charges for placing the petitioner under suspension are absolutely vague.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and have perused the record. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

On a perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the charges on which the petitioner has been placed under suspension are vague and as such the suspension in pursuance of the said charges does not appear to be justified. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is provided that the enquiry as contemplated by the impugned order may go on and be completed as expeditiously as possible in which the petitioner shall cooperate and not seek any unnecessary adjournment. Till the completion of enquiry and passing of order by the disciplinary authority, the suspension of the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 8.5.2007 shall remain abeyance.

This writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to cost.

dt. 22.6.2007

dps

w.p. 28043.07


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.