Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/1809/2002 of VIJAY SINGH VERMA Vs STATE and ORS. on 5 December 2003
UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition No. 1809 of 2002 (SB) Vajai Singh Verma son of Sri Jhunku Lal Cooperative Inspector Gr-2 Central Consumer Cooperative Store, Uttarkashi. …………. Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & others
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL.
Writ Petition No. 1809 of 2002 (SB)
Vajai Singh Verma son of Sri Jhunku Lal Cooperative Inspector Gr-2 Central Consumer Cooperative Store, Uttarkashi. …………. Petitioner State of Uttaranchal & others
Versus
…...………. Respondents.
Dated:- 5.12.2003
Sri B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioner Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J.
Heard Sri B.S. Adhikari for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the respondents at length.
By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the suspension order dated 7.11.2002.
Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was working as Assistant Development Officer, Central Consumer Cooperative Store, Uttarkashi. The petitioner was suspended vide order dated 7.11.2002. The petitioner has alleged various malafides giving rise to his suspension order by the authorities concerned.
The petitioner has stated that inquiry against him has already been completed. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority has issued a show cause. The petitioner has submitted his reply to show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority, on 31.5.2003 but no decision has been taken by the disciplinary authority till now.
In view of the facts mentioned above the respondents are, directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by 31.12.2003.
The petitioner has also stated that subsistence allowance has not been paid to him. The respondents are directed to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner regularly in pursuance of the Court’s orders dated 22.3.2003, 16.6.2003 and 11.7.2003. Liberty is given to the petitioner to inform the Court if subsistence allowance is not paid to him.
Subject to the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
5.12.2003 (Rajesh Tandon, J.) Dhyani