REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Aditya Mishra Appellant

V/S

M.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BANK OF INDIA V. DEGALA SURYANARAYAN [REFERRED TO]
B. K. MUNIRAJ V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [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]
SUR ENAMEL AND STAMPING WORLD LIMITED VS. WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS VS. A R SRINIVASAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. BAKHTAWAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAMA KANT MISRA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT THAKUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NAIK SARDAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
TRIVENI RUBBER AND PLASTICS TIRUVALLA KERALA VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE COCHIN [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA MINING CORPORATION VS. ANANDA CHANDRA PRUSTY [REFERRED TO]
TARA CHAND VYAS VS. CHAIRMAN AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
COLOUR CHEM LIMITED VS. A L ALASPURKAR [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. MAHESH KUMAR MISHRA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. P CHANDRA MOULI [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL MANAGER U P S R T C ETAWAH VS. HOTI LAL [REFERRED TO]
DAMOH PANNA SUGAR RURAL REGIONAL BANK VS. MUNNA LAL JAIN [REFERRED TO]
SURESH PATHRELLA VS. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE [REFERRED TO]
DEPOT MANAGER A P S R T C VS. B SWAMY [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN AND MD VSP VS. GOPARAJU SRI PRABHAKARA HARI BABU [REFERRED TO]
ARULVELU VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI VS. GULABHIA M LAD [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER P PUNJAB AND SIND BANK VS. DAYA SINGH [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDERS dated 29.6.2001 and 24.4.2004 are being assailed vide this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) VIDE order dated 29.6.2001, the petitioner, an Executive Engineer (T & D), Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board having held guilty in a departmental enquiry on a charge sheet dated 22.3.1996 has been inflicted with the penalty of reduction to lower stage of pay of Rs.12,000/ p.m.; (i.e. reducing two increments) for a period of two years with further direction that during this period, he will not earn any annual grade increment and on expiry of said period, it will have the effect of postponement of further increment of pay, i.e., only after expiry of two years period, he will start earning his increment from the reduced lower stage of pay. [In respect of charge sheet (supplementary) dated 4.1.2000 the petitioner was given the warning that he should be more careful in discharging assigned duties in future. The petitioner, however, does not question the penalty of warning and confine his challenge to the punishment for the charges levelled vide charge sheet dated 22.3.1996.) The order of punishment was affirmed in appeal preferred by the petitioner which was dismissed on 24.4.2004.

(3.) IN the departmental enquiry charges 1, 2, 5 and 7 were fully proved, charges 4 and 6 were partially proved; whereas, charges 3, 8 and 9 were not proved.

Click here to view full judgment.

ADITYA MISHRA Vs. M.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address