REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAVINDRA RAI Appellant

V/S

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

K. SUKHENDAR REDDY V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT HOTEL IMPERIAL NEW DELHI VS. HOTEL WORKERS UNION [REFERRED TO]
DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. KUSHAL BHAN [REFERRED TO]
T CAJEE VS. U JORMANIK SIEM ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL AND INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION U P ALLAHABAD VS. GHANSHYAM DAS GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
R P KAPUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BALVANTRAI RATILAL PATEL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
PURTABPORE CO LIMITED VS. CANE COMMISSIONER OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. SHARDUL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
V P GIDRONIYA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAM NARESH LAL [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRIKA JHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. BROJO NATH GANGULY / TARUN KANTI SENGUPTA [REFERRED TO]
T V CHOUDHARY A MEMBER OF THE INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE UNDER SUSPENSION VS. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KUSHESHWAR DUBEY VS. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
P V SRINIVASA SASTRY VS. COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL [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]
ANIRUDHSINHJI KARANSINHJI JADEJA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT VS. L SRINIVASAN [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR GENERAL ESI VS. T ABDUL RAZAK [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. B K MEENA [REFERRED TO]
ALLAHABAD BANK VS. DEEPAK KUMAR BHOLA [REFERRED TO]
M RAGHAVELU VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
TARLOCHAN DEV SHARMA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned suspension order dated 9th July, 2003 (Annexure-5).

(2.) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner had been working as a District Panchayat Raj Officer, Kushinagar. The Hon'ble Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh visited the area and had an inspection of different villages known as Ambedkar villages on 3rd July, 2003. Not being satisfied from the work under the supervision of the petitioner, she made an announcement on the spot in public that the petitioner would be put under suspension. On 5th July, 2003, the District Magistrate, respondent No. 3 passed an order to the effect that as petitioner had been found guilty of irregularities at the time of local inspection of the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 3rd July, 2003 and she had made a public statement to put him under suspension, he was restrained to work further on the post. The competent authority subsequently passed the order of suspension on 9th July, 2003. Hence this petition.

(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAVINDRA RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address