H.N. SRIVASTAVA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION) UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner contends that he was inducted with the respondents into the services as a clerk as back as on 4/10/1982. Owing to his service credentials being unblemished the petitioner was later on promoted as a senior clerk by the order passed by the competent authority i.e. The Regional Officer of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Tanakpur Depot District Champawat. In the seniority list of senior clerk, which was then issued by the respondents-department, the name of the petitioner figures at serial number 10. But the controversy started germinating, when respondent no.2 has passed the suspension order; as against the petitioner; on the ground that petitioner was levelled with an allegation of misconduct of insubordination of not following the orders passed by the superior authorities and he was not performing his duties, to the office to which he was attached. The order of suspension of 19/8/2011, was isolatedly based upon the said ground.

(3.) The respondents counsel submitted that the nature of allegations levelled, in the order of suspension will fall to be under Sub Clause (6) of Clause 62 of the Uttar Pradesh State Transport Corporation Employees (Other Than Officers) Service Regulations 1981, as it would be applicable to the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, owing to its adoption after creation of the State of Uttarakhand under the provisions of the U.P. Reorganization Act.