Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MUNNA LAL versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Munna Lal v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 60953 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 2842 (14 September 2005)

 

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 A.P. Sahi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri B.G. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

The petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 18.8.2005 (Annexure-I to the writ petition). A perusal thereof indicates that the order of suspension has been passed in contemplation of an inquiry for the irregularities having been reported in respect of the construction of the school building. The matter is pending inquiry before the District Basic Education Officer, Jhansi, who has appointed the Assistant Basic Education Officer Sri K.K. Jain to complete the inquiry. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the charges are in respect of financial irregularities and use of inferior quality of material during the construction of school building, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere at this stage with the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that a separate chargesheet ought to have been issued and, as such, the charges referred to in the order cannot be treated as a chargesheet. The aforesaid argument is misconceived inasmuch as the issuance of a separate chargesheet or the mentioning thereof in the suspension order will not make any difference inasmuch as the petitioner has been made aware of the charges. In case any further evidence is wanting in respect of the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall provide the same to the petitioner and complete the inquiry as expeditiously as possible preferably within 2 months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before him.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

D/- 14.9.2005

60953/05/ias


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.