Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/134/2009 of RAMESH LAL Vs STATE PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL UTTARKHAND and OTHERS on 30 December 2010
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 134 (S/B) OF 2009 Ramesh Lal ……Petitioner Versus State Public Service tribunal Uttarakhand, …..Respondents Dehradun & others Shri D.S. Mehta, Advocate holding brief of Shri M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 134 (S/B) OF 2009
Ramesh Lal
……Petitioner
Versus
State Public Service tribunal Uttarakhand, Dehradun & others
…..Respondents
Shri D.S. Mehta, Advocate holding brief of Shri M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.P. Uadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
thDated: 30December, 2010
Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.
Barin Ghosh,, C.J. (Oral)
In the present writ petition, it was contended that the suspension order is not sustainable, inasmuch as, the same has not been passed either on the ground that the petitioner was arrested and kept in custody for a period in excess of 48 hours or that a criminal charge against the petitioner is pending investigation before any court or that there is a disciplinary proceeding pending against the petitioner. It was contended that the respondents purported to suspend the petitioner in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding, but instead of initiating a disciplinary proceeding by issuing a charge sheet, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. Being, prima facie, satisfied that in such circumstances there was no contemplation of disciplinary proceeding, the order of suspension was stayed. The present application for vacating the said interim order was filed sometimes in 2009 alongwith a copy of the counter affidavit intended to be filed to contest the writ petition. In the counter affidavit it has not been stated that a charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. That being the case,we confirm the interim order and at the same time dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the interim order as well as confirmation thereof will stand vacated in the event within three months from today a charge sheet is issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority.
ML
(V.K.Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.)