REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

R.BALAJI Appellant

V/S

Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Tangedco Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MANAGEMENT HOTEL IMPERIAL NEW DELHI VS. HOTEL WORKERS UNION [REFERRED TO]
R P KAPUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BALVANTRAI RATILAL PATEL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
A K K NAMBIAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
V P GIDRONIYA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS VS. TARAK NATH GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. V SIVARAMAN [REFERRED TO]
U P RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD VS. SANJIV RAJAN:NARENDRA KUMAR MALIK [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. BIMAL KUMAR MOHANTY [REFERRED TO]
SWATANTAR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
ALLAHABAD BANK VS. DEEPAK KUMAR BHOLA [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. RATTAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. RAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
K C SAREEN VS. C B I CHANDIGARH [REFERRED TO]
PRADIP CHANDRA PATNAIK VS. PRAMOD CHANDRA PATNAIK [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAJIV KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
S JEYASINGH RAJAN VS. PRESIDENT KALLOORANI PANCHAYAT TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT [REFERRED TO]
D GNANASEKARAN VS. CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THANJAVUR [REFERRED TO]
M RAJAMBAL VS. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the Order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 25.04.2016, refusing to revoke the suspension against the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was working in the Electricity Board as a training Helper. At that point of time, a criminal case came to be filed by the DV and AC in Cr.No.6 of 2015, for an offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was shown as A-2.

(3.) The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 01.05.2015. The criminal case was pending and the petitioner was under prolonged suspension and therefore, he made a representation for revocation of the suspension. The 3rd respondent has rejected the said application and has passed the impugned order to the effect that it is not feasible to revoke the suspension till the petitioner is exonerated from the criminal case. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

Click here to view full judgment.

R.BALAJI Vs. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR TANGEDCO

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address