Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M. DURGAJI SNATAKOTTAR MAHA VIDYALAYA AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M. Durgaji Snatakottar Maha Vidyalaya And Another v. State Of U.P.And Others - WRIT - A No. 55955 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 41 (3 January 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

COURT NO. 34

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 55955 OF 2004

Committee of Management & Anr. -------------    Petitioner              

         Versus.

State of U.P. & Ors.      -------------  Respondents

_________

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.12.2004, by which the respondent no 3 has quashed the suspension order in respect of respondent no. 5.

The suspension order of respondent no. 5 has been quashed on the ground that, before passing the suspension order no opportunity of hearing was given. In fact, law does not require such a hearing. Further, the charge-sheet has already been issued, and the charges levelled against the respondent no. 5 are in respect of embezzlement of a huge amount. Thus, considering the gravity of the charges, respondent no. 3 could not have exercised the power of quashing the suspension order.

After hearing Shri Ashok Khare, learned  Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri R.N. Singh, learned  Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no. 5, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 4 and Shri Anil Tiwari, learned  counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 we quash the impugned order dated 16.12.2004, passed by the respondent no. 3, with the directions as under:-

(i). The respondent no. 5, if he is so aggrieved, may make an appropriate application for inspection of the record before the present petitioner. The petitioner shall examine the application/representation and shall request the District Administration, which has sealed the record, to open the same. We direct the District Administration to open the seal forthwith to facilitate the respondent no. 5 to have inspection of the relevant record. After inspection of the record, the District Administration can seal the record again.

(ii). If the respondent no. 5 makes an appropriate application and furnishes a satisfactory explanation to the charges levelled against him and requests the petitioner for recalling the suspension order, the present petitioner shall pass an appropriate order within one week from the date of receipt of such an application.

(iii). In any case, inquiry should be concluded within two months from today.

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

3.1.2005

AKSI


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.