REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Yogendra Kumar Tiwari Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

KHEM CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JANKINATH SARANGI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
A K KRAIPAK VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. OM PRAKASH GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD VS. SUBHAS CHANDRA SINHA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. MAHENDRA KUMAR DAS [REFERRED TO]
HIRA NATH MISHRA VS. PRINCIPAL RAJENDRA MEDICAL COLLEGE RANCHI [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN BOARD OF MINING EXAMINATION AND CHIEF INSPECTOR OF MINES VS. RAMJEE [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR BANERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
S L KAPOOR VS. JAGMOHAN [REFERRED TO]
K L TRIPATHI VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA BISWAROOP CHATTERJEE ACHINTA KUMAR BISWAS NABENDU BOSE LAXMI NARAYAN VS. TULSIRAM PATEL:SADANAND JHA:G P KOUSHAL:UNION OF INDIA:STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAMA TEWARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
U P JUNIOR DOCTORS ACTION COMMITTEE VS. DRB SHEETAL NANDWANI [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR G S SODHI LT COL S K DUGGAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI SHANKAR PANDEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR ECIL HYDERABAD VS. B KARUNAKAR [REFERRED TO]
S P CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU VS. JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
KRISHANLAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
UMRAO SINGH CHOUDHARY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN YADAV VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF PATIALA VS. S K SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
BISWA RANJAN SAHOO VS. SUSHANTA KUMAR DINDA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. THIRUK V PERUMAL [REFERRED TO]
S K SINGH VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAE BARELI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK VS. BHOLA NATH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY VS. UDAYSINGH S O GANPATRAO NAIK NIMBALKAR [REFERRED TO]
R S SAINI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN JANDK STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION VS. FEYAZ AHMED MALIK [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. S BALAKRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. HARENDRA ARORA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. O CHAKRADHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAMESH CHANDRA MANGALIK [REFERRED TO]
DEBOTOSH PAL CHOUDHARY VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [REFERRED TO]
LALIT POPLI VS. CANARA BANK [REFERRED TO]
CANARA BANK VS. DEBASIS DAS [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN LAL GUPTA VS. ASHA DEVI GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
MARDIA CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
N K PRASADA VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. JAGIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPOART CORPO VS. S G KOTTURAPPA [REFERRED TO]
VIVEKA NAND SETHI VS. CHAIRMAN J and K BANK LTD [REFERRED TO]
SYNDICATE BANK VS. VENKATESH GURURAO KURATI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Santosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr. Q.H. Rizvi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) In a departmental inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct and vide order dated 11.08.2016 issued from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the order, by means of this writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned punishment order dated 11.08.2016 and also quashing all the departmental proceedings and with further prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith with all consequential benefits.

(3.) Brief facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1982 as a Range Forest Officer. During the posting as Range Forest Officer, Range Hathras, a Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the petitioner for verification of 14 labourers and the petitioner was directed to verify the same from the records, the petitioner verified it but later on it was found in the inquiry that the verification made by the petitioner was not correct and some wrong entries were entered into the relevant registers by erasing the name of some labourers and including the name of others and in departmental inquiry he was found guilty for all these charges and was punished vide order dated 30.06.2016.

Click here to view full judgment.

YOGENDRA KUMAR TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address