Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRAN NATH JOSHI versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pran Nath Joshi v. State of Haryana & Ors - RSA-3944-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1751 (16 March 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R.S.A.No.3944 of 2005

Date of Decision : March 09, 2006.

Pran Nath Joshi .... Appellant

Vs.

State of Haryana & others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.B.S.Walia, Advocate

for the appellant.

* * *

JUDGMENT (Oral) :

The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two courts below and has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

He challenged the order dated February 10, 1999, whereby defendant no.3-General Manager, Haryana Roadways had directed stoppage of two annual grade increments of the plaintiff without cumulative effect.

The plaintiff claimed that the said order was illegal, null and void and bad.

Both the courts below have held that after the show cause notice had been issued to the plaintiff, he failed to file any reply and thereafter, due process was followed and aforesaid minor penalty was imposed upon the plaintiff.

The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial court and his appeal also failed before the learned first appellate court.

From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the plaintiff R.S.A.No.3944 of 2005 : 2 :

was granted time to inspect the file and submit his reply when the show cause notice was issued to him. Plaintiff chose not to file any reply to the charge-sheet. He also received the aforesaid notice, but still chose not to inspect the record. After expiry of 15 days, he made a request that certain documents be supplied to him. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the plaintiff had been adopting merely dilatory tactics.

Both the courts below have found it as a fact that due procedure had been followed while passing the order of punishment.

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 09, 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.