Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BIJENDRA PRATAP SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bijendra Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 19858 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 7734 (26 April 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 Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. N. Singh appearing for the respondents.

By this writ petition  the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 6.11.2006 by which the petitioner  was placed under suspension. The petitioner has also prayed for  quashing the charge sheet dated 18.1.2007 and 28.3.2007.  Learned counsel for the  petitioner submits that the charges on which the petitioner was suspended are entirely vague charges. He further submitted that the charge sheet also contained general and vague  charges on which no enquiry can proceed. He further contends that  although the charge sheet  was served on 18.1.2007 but enquiry  has  not proceeded.

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.  

The suspension order  refers to the allegations on which  the petitioner has been placed under suspension .  The allegations which are made in the suspension order , cannot be said either general or vague. I do not find any error in the order suspending the petitioner.  The charge sheet also refers the material on which charges were framed.  No ground is made  out for quashing the charge sheet also.  However, the submission of the petitioner that the enquiry has not yet proceeded although charge sheet was served on 18.1.2007 needs consideration.  The petitioner having  been suspended on 6.11.2006 and the charge sheet having been served, ends of justice be served in  disposing of the writ petition  and directing the Disciplinary authority  to conclude the enquiry expeditiously preferably within a period  of  six months .  In case  the enquiry is not so  completed despite the petitioner's participation the respondents shall consider the prayer of the petitioner for revocation of the  suspension in accordance with law.  Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that although the Enquiry Officer  has written to the Branch Manager  to give copy or show  all relevant documents  which has not yet been done. The respondents may supply copy of documents to the petitioner or permit him inspection of the records.

With the above observations the writ petition  is disposed  of.

D/-26.4.2007

SCS./19858


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.