REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

STATE OF U.P. Appellant

V/S

Santosh Kumar Saran Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

A.C.C. LTD. V. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
S.C. GIROTRA V. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH NARAIN GUPTA V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
SALAHUDDIN ANSARI V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDRA GUPTA V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED ALL INDIA PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES FEDERATION VS. ALL INDIA PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES FEDERATION:PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
IMPERIAL TOBACCO COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. ITS WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
MEENGLAS TEA ESTATE VS. WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. C S SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
K L TRIPATHI VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF PATIALA VS. S K SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. T P LAL SRIVASTAVA [REFERRED TO]
ROOP SINGH NEGI VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [REFERRED TO]
BIECCO LAWRIE LTD VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. SAROJ KUMAR SINHA [REFERRED TO]
UMA SHANKAR YADAV VS. REGISTRAR OF COOP SOCIETIES [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR U P CO OP SPG MILS FEDERATION LTD [REFERRED TO]
TATA OIL MILLS COMPANY, LIMITED VS. ITS WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Standing Counsel for petitioner and Sri Rajesh Singh Chauhan, counsel for respondent.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by State of Uttar Pradesh and its authorities challenging judgment and order dated 10.01.2011 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") allowing Claim Petition No. 1246 of 2010 filed by claimant-respondent 1, Santosh Kumar Saran.

(3.) Major penalty of reduction in rank by reverting claimant-respondent from the post of Executive Engineer to Assistant Engineer vide order dated 07.01.2010 was imposed by petitioners which was challenged in aforesaid claim petition and the same has been set aside by Tribunal on various grounds including that no proper regular enquiry was conducted inasmuch as Enquiry Officer did not fix any date, time or place for adducing evidence to prove the charge against delinquent employee before Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Officer proceeded as if the charges stand proved as levelled in the charge sheet and it is for the delinquent employee to disprove the same. In taking this view, Tribunal relied on Apex Court's decision in Union of India and others Vs. Prakash Kumar Tandon (2009) 1 SCC (L & S). Tribunal has found that no proper enquiry was conducted and in absence of any oral enquiry punishment order is vitiated in law.

Click here to view full judgment.

STATE OF U.P. Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR SARAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address