Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DHARAM PAL SINGH YADAV versus DISTRICT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CO

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dharam Pal Singh Yadav v. District Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 12328 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 3923 (8 March 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

   Court no. 1                                                        

         Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12328 of 2007

Dharam Pal Singh Yadav      versus   The District Assistant Registrar,

                                                           Cooperative  Societies,U.P. and others.

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order of suspension dated 16.11.2006 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no.3, Secretary, Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Limited, Bhadsan Development Block Ajitmal, District Auraiya by which he was suspended on certain charges.

It appears from the record that the petitioner was working as Accounts Clerk in the office of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Limited, Bhadsan Development Block Ajitmal, District Auraiya. He was required to submit an explanation in pursuance of the show cause notice issued by the respondents which according to the petitioner he has submitted a detailed reply and further again a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling him to give certain explanations and thereafter the impugned order of suspension dated 16.11.2006 has been passed against the petitioner suspending him from 1.8.2006.

The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of suspension has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order of suspension.

The counsel for the petitioner could not show any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of suspension from the record nor could place any rules or regulations, which require that an employee should be given an opportunity of hearing before suspending him.  He further submits that till date neither any enquiry against the petitioner has been initiated nor any proceedings are contemplated in this regard.

In the circumstances, it is open to the respondents to initiate enquiry against the petitioner and bring it to its logical conclusion in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

It is expected that the petitioner will cooperate in the enquiry and will not take any adjournment.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs.

Dated 8.3.2007

CPP/-

 


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.