Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Samir Kumar Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Samir Kumar Shrivastava vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Dec 05, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1047434

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Samir Kumar Shrivastava

Advocate Shri. K.C.Ghildiyal

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

w.p.no19992/2012 05.12.2012 shri k.c.ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. heard on the question of admission and interim relief. issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by registered a.d.the notices be made returnable in six weeks. it is contended by the petitioner that on account of his selection for posting on deputation, the order of deputation posting was issued. making certain reports with respect to performance of duties it was informed to the commissioner rewa that petitioner had committed misconduct on account of which he was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.10.2012. the facts were represented by the petitioner before the said authority pointing out that for the alleged misconduct, he could not have been placed under suspension as no misconduct was committed by him. the commissioner asked for the comments on the said representation which according to the petitioner were given by the collector on 16.11.2012 and it was recommended that the petitioner be reinstated in service. the order of suspension has been revoked on 19.11.2012 and the petitioner has been reinstated and posted on the place from where he was placed under suspension. however, the order impugned has been issued on 23.11.2012 treating as if the petitioner is under suspension and he is being repatriated. considering the aforesaid facts, the operation of impugned order dated 23.11.2012 annx.p/9 shall remain in abeyance till the next date of listing. the petitioner be allowed to continue on his post on deputation, till further orders of this court. list immediately after six weeks. certified copy as per rules. (k.k.trivedi) judge. a.praj.

Full Judgment

W.P.No19992/2012 05.12.2012 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of Process Fee within seven days by registered A.D.The notices be made returnable in six weeks.

It is contended by the petitioner that on account of his selection for posting on deputation, the order of deputation posting was issued.

Making certain reports with respect to performance of duties it was informed to the Commissioner Rewa that petitioner had committed misconduct on account of which he was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.10.2012.

The facts were represented by the petitioner before the said authority pointing out that for the alleged misconduct, he could not have been placed under suspension as no misconduct was committed by him.

The Commissioner asked for the comments on the said representation which according to the petitioner were given by the Collector on 16.11.2012 and it was recommended that the petitioner be reinstated in service.

The order of suspension has been revoked on 19.11.2012 and the petitioner has been reinstated and posted on the place from where he was placed under suspension.

However, the order impugned has been issued on 23.11.2012 treating as if the petitioner is under suspension and he is being repatriated.

Considering the aforesaid facts, the operation of impugned order dated 23.11.2012 Annx.P/9 shall remain in abeyance till the next date of listing.

The petitioner be allowed to continue on his post on deputation, till further orders of this Court.

List immediately after six weeks.

Certified copy as per rules.

(K.K.Trivedi) Judge.

A.Praj.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial