REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Brahamnad Tyagi Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U. P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

DR. RB AGNIHOTRI V. STATE OF UP AND OTHER [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY KANT KHARE V. UP COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORIES FEDERATION LTD. [REFERRED TO]
RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD AND ANOTHER VS. PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL U.P. AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
S.P.S. RAGHAV VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
B J SHELAT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
TOWN AREA COMMITTEE JALALABAD VS. JAGDISH PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
C L VERMA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SAYED MUZAFFAR MIR [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. B DEV [REFERRED TO]
BHAGIRATHI JENA VS. BOARD OF DIRECTORS O S F C [REFERRED TO]
M D ARMY WELRARE HOUSING ORGANISATION VS. SUMANGAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
U P COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD VS. L P RAI [REFERRED TO]
SARUP SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR U P CO OP SPG MILS FEDERATION LTD [REFERRED TO]
BABU LAL VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA SINGH RATHORE VS. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS [REFERRED TO]
DEV PRAKASH TEWARI VS. U.P. COOPERATIVE INSTITUTIONAL SERVICE BOARD [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Kunal Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4.

(2.) Present petition has been filed for following reliefs:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was employed in the establishment of respondent no. 3 on 1/4/1999 on the post of Head Clerk and he was retired on 30/4/2018. He further submitted that a charge sheet has been served upon petitioner on 7/4/2022, against which, petitioner filed present petition. He next submitted that service of the petitioner is governed by U. P. Agricultural Produce Market Committees (Centralized) Services Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, 1984) and Regulations, 1984 is having no provision to empower the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to initiate disciplinary proceeding against a retired employee. Therefore, disciplinary proceeding so initiated as well as impugned charge sheet dtd. 7/4/2022 is bad in law, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Click here to view full judgment.

BRAHAMNAD TYAGI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address