Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KAMLESH DEVI & ORS versus UTTARI HARYANA PARSARAN NIGAM LIMITED AN

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kamlesh Devi & Ors v. Uttari Haryana Parsaran Nigam Limited an - RSA-3620-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1747 (16 March 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R.S.A.No.3620 of 2005

Date of Decision : March 10, 2006.

Kamlesh Devi and others .... Appellants

Vs.

Uttari Haryana Parsaran Nigam

Limited and another .... Respondents

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.Y.P.Malik, Advocate

for the appellants.

* * *

JUDGMENT (Oral) :

Plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two courts below. He filed a suit for declaration challenging the order dated July 15, 1998, whereby he was ordered to be removed from service. The aforesaid punishment order had been passed after holding a regular inquiry but the plaintiff claimed that the inquiry report was also illegal.

In the proceedings before the trial court, the plaintiff produced one Ramesh Kumar as PW-1. No other witness was produced by him. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff also chose not to appear as his own witness. On the basis of the evidence led by the defendants, the learned trial court held that the inquiry proceedings against the plaintiff had been duly held in accordance with the rules and procedure and principles of natural justice were also adhered to. The termination/removal order had been passed thereafter. The said order was held to be legal and valid.

R.S.A.No.3620 of 2005 : 2 :

In these circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Appeal filed by him also failed before the learned first appellate court. Identical findings were recorded by the learned first appellate court as well.

Shri Y.P.Malik, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff- appellant has vehemently argued that the plaintiff was not granted any opportunity to cross-examine the witness during the departmental inquiry.

However, the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel can not be accepted. No evidence in this regard, has been produced by the plaintiff.

As noticed above, the plaintiff has not even appeared as his own witness.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

March 10, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika JUDGE


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.