BASUDEO KUSHWAH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.
EmailAppeal: WPSB No. 261 of 2012
Petitioner: BASUDEO KUSHWAH
Respondent: STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.
Apeal: WPSB No. 261 of 2012
Judges: Barin Ghosh, C.J.& U.C. Dhyani, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 08, 2012
Appearances:
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents.
Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents.
JUDGEMENT:
JUDGEMENT:
In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, it has been stated that before asking for refund of `34,750/-, no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and, accordingly, the claim for refund of `34,750/- is outside the purview of the service conditions of the petitioner.
The learned Chief Standing Counsel drew our attention to the order impugned, where it has been stated that the petitioner was asked to show cause and steps under Disciplinary Rules were taken, while he was so asked to show cause. The learned counsel for the petitioner still insists that the order impugned is outside disciplinary proceedings. We, accordingly, call for affidavit, inasmuch as, if the order is pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings, then the matter has to go to the Pubic Services Tribunal.
Let affidavit be filed by the State within three weeks enclosing therewith the charge sheet issued to the petitioner, which resulted, ultimately, in passing the order impugned.
***************
In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, it has been stated that before asking for refund of `34,750/-, no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and, accordingly, the claim for refund of `34,750/- is outside the purview of the service conditions of the petitioner.
The learned Chief Standing Counsel drew our attention to the order impugned, where it has been stated that the petitioner was asked to show cause and steps under Disciplinary Rules were taken, while he was so asked to show cause. The learned counsel for the petitioner still insists that the order impugned is outside disciplinary proceedings. We, accordingly, call for affidavit, inasmuch as, if the order is pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings, then the matter has to go to the Pubic Services Tribunal.
Let affidavit be filed by the State within three weeks enclosing therewith the charge sheet issued to the petitioner, which resulted, ultimately, in passing the order impugned.
***************
