Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BRAHAM PARKASH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Braham Parkash v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-17091-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 9470 (28 October 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

C.W.P. No. 17091 of 2006

Date of Decision: 30.10.2006

Braham Parkash

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

PRESENT: Mr. R.C. Chaudhary, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has been working as Secretary in the respondent Bank. He was charge sheeted by issuance of two charge sheets to which he replied. An inquiry was held against him and the Enquiry Officer has found him guilty of various charges including the charge of embezzlement. On the basis of the aforementioned charges, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. As nothing has been pointed out it is presumed that all the provisions of the Rules concerning holding of inquiry and the principles of natural justice C.W.P. No. 17091 of 2006

were complied with. The order dated 29.6.2004 removing the petitioner from service was challenged before the Appellate Authority, namely, Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana, Chandigarh, which has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 6.1.2005 (P-2). Thereafter, the matter was taken to the Revisional Authority-cum-Joint Secretary to Government Haryana, Cooperative Department, Chandigarh, which also upheld the aforementioned order.

We have gone through these orders and find that the petitioner has been found guilty of various charges including the charge of embezzlement of public funds. After perusal of the aforementioned orders and hearing the learned counsel we are inclined to uphold those orders as no plausible reason has been advanced by the learned counsel warranting to take a different view from the one taken by the aforementioned authorities. The petition is wholly without merit.

Dismissed.

(M.M. KUMAR)

JUDGE

(M.M.S. BEDI)

October 30, 2006 JUDGE

Pkapoor


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.