CHANDRA SHEKHAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As a consequence to a disciplinary action, the petitioner (appellant herein) was subjected to a punishment in the following terms:-

(2.) Aggrieved by the same, he preferred a petition for writ with a ground, inter alia, that second part of punishment relating to period of suspension is bad being without jurisdiction. Learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ relying upon clause (2) of Regulation 48 of the Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 that reads as under:-

(3.) A challenge is given to the judgment impugned with submission that learned single Bench failed to appreciate and interpret provisions of Regulation 48 in correct perspective and that ultimately resulted into miscarriage of justice. It is submitted that clause (2) of Regulation 48 pertains to two different eventualities which are:-