REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Appellant

V/S

TEJ BAHADUR SINGH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

JAGDISH PRASAD SINGH V. STATE OF U. P. [REFERRED TO]
AVATAR SINGH V. STATE OF U. P. [REFERRED TO]
HART RAM MAURYA V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAMA TEWARI V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
JUGDISH MITTER VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SAMSHER SINGH ISHWAR CHAND AGARWAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
TOWN AREA COMMITTEE JALALABAD VS. JAGDISH PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT STEEL TUBES LIMITED VS. GUJARAT STEEL TUBES MAZDOOR SABHA [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR UTTAR PRADESH WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VS. VIJAY NARAYAN VAJPAYEE [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH GOEL VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SHATRUGHAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHYAM GUPTA VS. U P STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
DIPTI PRAKASH BANERJEE VS. SATVENDRA NATH BOSE NATIONAL CENTRE FOR BASIC SCIENCES CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
NAR SINGH PAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF INDIA VS. INDU RAJAGOPALAN [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PRAKASH SHAHI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE FED OF COOP SPINNING MILLS LIMITED VS. P V SWAMINATHAN [REFERRED TO]
SHAILAJI SHIVAJIRAO PATIL VS. PRESIDENT HON KHASDAR UGS SANSTHA [REFERRED TO]
DHANANJAY VS. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILA PARISHAD JALNA [REFERRED TO]
MATHEW P THOMAS VS. KERALA STATE CIVIL CORPORATION LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. BALBIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SUKHWINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. VIJAY SHANKAR TRIPATHI [REFERRED TO]
STATA OF U P VS. ASHOK KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
NEHRU YUVA KENDRA SANGATHAN VS. MEHBUB ALAM LASKAR [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAJESH VYAS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEVI Prasad Singh and V. D. Chaturvedi, JJ. Heard Smt. Aruna Mishra, learned standing counsel on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 1. Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27. 2. 1993 (Annexure -1) passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal.

(2.) THE opposite party No. 1, who is the member of Provincial Armed Constabulary (in short P. A. C.), had joined the force at Jhansi in the year 1984. THE controversy in question relates allegation to the fact that the opposite party No. 1 while he was posted in Etawah, on account of misconduct, a notice dated 18th August, 1989 was served upon him, in response to which he submitted a reply. After receipt of reply, by an order dated 18th August, 1989 the private respondent was punished for ten days' Physical Drill (P. D. ). Learned standing counsel submits that respondent No. 1 has refused to oblige the department to accept the punishment and proceeded on leave on 2nd September, 1989. THEreafter, his services have been terminated by an order dated 6th October, 1989.

(3.) WE have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. There appears to be no dispute that immediately after the order of punishment for ten days physical drill was passed, the services of private respondent was terminated. It is also alleged that after award of punishment, the opposite party No. 1 had gone on leave and tried to disobey the order of punishment dated 18. 8. 1989 and not undergone the sentence of physical drill.

Click here to view full judgment.

STATE OF U P Vs. TEJ BAHADUR SINGH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address