WPSS/918/2018 of Vijay Kumar Upadhaya Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS
Parties
- i)Krushnakant B. Parmar (PETITIONER)
- Union of India and another, 2012 (3) SCC 178 India and another, 2012 (3) SCC 178 (RESPONDENT)
Cites (1 resolved of 4 detected)
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
Hon’ble Lok Pal Singh, J.
Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tej Singh Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
By means of present writ petition, petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 24.06.2017 passed by respondent no.3–S.S.P., Nainital as well as the order dated 04.10.2013 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated and thereafter the appeal preferred against the termination order has been dismissed.
The services of the petitioner were terminated by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital by an order dated 04.10.2013, for unauthorized absent from duty. Being aggrieved by the order of termination, petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kumaun Range, Nainital, which also got dismissed by order dated 24.06.2017. Hence, present writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Admittedly, petitioner has statutory remedy of revision before the next higher authority i.e. Director General of Police in view of Rule 23 of U.P. Police Officers of subordinate ranks (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1991. That being so, present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeal within period of 15 days from today. If such appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall decide the same, in accordance with law, within period of four weeks from the date of receipt of appeal. While taking decision on the appeal, the appellate authority shall take into consideration the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:-
i)Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and another, 2012 (3) SCC 178 India and another, 2012 (3) SCC 178
ii)Commandant, 22[nd]Battallion, CRPF, Srinagar v. Surinder Kumar, 2011 (10) SCC 244 CRPF, Srinagar v. Surinder Kumar, 2011 (10) SCC 244
iii)Administrator, U.T. Dadra & Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M. Lad, 2010 (5) SCC 775 Haveli v. Gulabhia M. Lad, 2010 (5) SCC 775
It is made clear that the question of delay will not come in the way of petitioner, as he is pursuing his remedy before this Court since May, 2018.
Rajni
(Lok Pal Singh, J.)
20.11.2019