WPSS/35055/1994 of KUNDAN LAL Vs EXECUTIVE ENG. P.W.D. and ORS

Court: Uttarakhand High Court
Decision date: 2008-03-25
Case number: 103 of 2002

Parties

Kundan Lal S/o Fauji Lal, Public Works Department, Inspection House, Gaucher Hall, Post Nagrasu, District Chamoli (PETITIONER)
Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Pauri Garhwal. Pauri Garhwal (RESPONDENT)

Cites (1 resolved of 2 detected)

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. versus KAUSHAL KISHORE SHUKLA (1991)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Header

Court No.2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 103 of 2002 (Old No. 35055 of 1994).

Kundan Lal S/o Fauji Lal, Public Works Department, Inspection House, Gaucher Hall, Post Nagrasu, District Chamoli.

………. Petitioner

Versus

1. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Pauri Garhwal. Pauri Garhwal.

2. Chief Engineer, 38[th] Circle, Public Works Department, Gopeshwar, District Chamoli, Department, Gopeshwar, District Chamoli,

3. Chief Engineer, Temporary Division, Public Works Department, Gochar, Incharge Karan Prayag, District Chamoli Department, Gochar, Incharge Karan Prayag, District Chamoli

……. Respondents.

Date: March 25, 2008.

Hon’ble P.C. Verma,J.

Heard Sri Vikas Pandey Advocate holding brief of Sri V.B.S.Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.M.Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. In this writ petition there is no interim order. Petitioner was Chowkidar. His services were terminated. The ground of challenge is that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing though the charge of absence from duty was the basis of termination order. In case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another versus Kaushal Kishore Shukla, reported in (1991) 1 supreme Court Cases, page 691 the Apex Court has

held that the appointing authority may take lenient view and may drop the disciplinary proceedings and pass the order of termination. Here the termination order is simpliciter. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another versus Kaushal Kishore Shukla (supra) he impugned order of termination cannot be said illegal. 3. The petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(P.C.Verma,J.) 25.03.2008

P.Singh