Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KESH RAJ SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' PRIN. SECRY., CANE DEVE. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kesh Raj Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru' Prin. Secry., Cane Deve. And Others - WRIT - A No. 4688 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1846 (6 February 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 Amitava Lala, J.

Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.

The order impugned herein is in the nature of second show cause being dated 14th December, 2006. The petitioner has been exonerated from the charges. But, according to the learned Standing Counsel, this show cause notice has been issued on the basis of disagreement with the report of the enquiry officer. According to us, the order of disagreement should be backed by specific reasons. However, upon going through the second show cause we find that it is backed by reiteration of the charge-sheet, which was issued prior to the enquiry. Therefore, second show cause is not backed by any specific reason. It is further important to mention hereunder that the petitioner was not even put under suspension prior to the enquiry. The grievance of the petitioner is that this second show cause is issued at the time when he was about to be promoted to the post of Deputy Cane Commissioner. It appears that the petitioner made his request to take final decision by the disciplinary authority on 11th June, 2005 and again on 05th December, 2006, but instead of completing the course of action on the basis of the enquiry report the second show cause has been issued as in disagreement with the enquiry report. The enquiry report is formally forwarded to the petitioner only yesterday i.e. on 05th February, 2007, which he has stated in presence of the learned Standing Counsel. In such circumstances, it appears that possibility of arbitrariness can not be ruled out. Therefore, the second show cause notice impugned herein being dated 14th January, 2007 can not be sustained, hence the same is hereby quashed. In view of the above, the authority concerned will consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, if any, in accordance with law. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of.

No order is passed as to costs.    

However, this order of quashing will not prevent the authority concerned to take appropriate steps if they think that there is genuine cause of disagreement against the report given by the enquiry officer.

Dt./-06.02.2007.

SKT/(4688-07).


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.