REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Shitla Prasad Srivastava Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U P Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

COOPER V. WANDSWORTH BOARD OF WORKS [REFERRED TO]
M/S MAHATMA GANDHI UPBHOKTA SAHKARI SAMITI VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
PARASU RAM SINGH VS. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE,U.P. LUCKNOW AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
RAJPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LIMITED CHAIBASA CEMENT WORKS JHINKPANI VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
MEENGLAS TEA ESTATE VS. WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYERS OF FIRESTONE TYRE AND RUBBER CO PRIVATE LIMITED VS. WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. A N SAXENA [REFERRED TO]
D K YADAV VS. J M A INDUSTRIES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF PATIALA VS. S K SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION VS. S RAGHUNATHAN:S P SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ZUNJARRAO BHIKAJI NAGARKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDER SINGH VS. HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD [REFERRED TO]
S D SHARMA VS. TRADE FAIR AUTHORITY OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL RAILWAY VS. RAGHUBIR SARAN [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY KANT KHARE VS. U P COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORIES FEDERATION LTD [REFERRED TO]
SITA DEVI VS. COMMISSIONER LUCKNOW DVISION LUCKNOW [REFERRED TO]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. SUKH PRASAD [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common question of facts and law are involved in both the aforementioned writ petitions, as such, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioners in both the aforementioned writ petitions, feeling aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority punishing them with the punishment of dismissal from service and also with recovery of the amount of damage which was caused to the department by their alleged misconduct, have preferred the aforementioned writ petitions.

(2.) In brief, the facts of Writ Petition No. 453 (SB) of 2006 are as under :

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22.7.2003, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 1020 (S/B) of 2003. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Additional Commissioner, Grade-I, Trade Tax, Lucknow, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer, served a charge-sheet dated 20.9.2003. Subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 9.10.2002, disposed of the writ petition finally with a direction that the petitioner shall file reply to the charge-sheet within 15 days and thereafter the inquiry be completed within a period of six weeks and enquiry report thereafter shall be submitted within 15 days.

Click here to view full judgment.

SHITLA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address