Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.29 seconds)
Vishwanath Vishwakarma vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 18 September, 2023 cites

Sarwanand Mishra vs State Of U.P.Through Secretary & Ors. on 19 March, 2015

14. Thus, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Tulsiram Patel (supra), T.R. Chellapan (supra) and Shankar Das (supra), and two Division Bench judgments of this court in Shyam Narain Shukla (supra) and Sadanand Mishra (supra), it can safely be concluded that while removing the petitioner from service, the respondents were bound to consider the conduct of the petitioner, which has led to his conviction in the session trial. This was the condition precedent for the competent authority to acquire jurisdiction to impose punishment of removal from service. However, the impugned order is unfortunately silent and does not show consideration of conduct of the petitioner which has led to his conviction in the S.T. No. 178 of 2005. It was necessary for the respondents, while passing the impugned order, to consider the conduct of the petitioner leading to his conviction and then to decide what punishment is to be inflicted upon him. This has not been done by the respondent No. 2 while removing the petitioner from service. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 10 - Y Varma - Full Document
1   2 Next