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.

Asha Ram Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Asha Ram vs State of U.P. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 17, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/455569

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
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.M.W.P. No. 2424 of 2002
Subject
Service

Case Summary

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

Service - suspension of employee on the basis of financial irregularity - according to G. O. the charge sheet to be served within six months for enforcement of suspension order - held, not maintainable. -

Key legal issue
Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Asha Ram

Advocate Murlidhar and ;R.P. Singh, Advs.

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Advocate C.S.C.

Legal References

Reported In
2002(1)AWC809; [2002(92)FLR961]; (2002)IIILLJ107All; (2002)1UPLBEC753

Excerpt

service - suspension of employee on the basis of financial irregularity - according to g. o. the charge sheet to be served within six months for enforcement of suspension order - held, not maintainable. - m. katju and s.k. singh, jj.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the petitioner is challenging the suspension order dated 28.4.2001. we have perused the impugned suspension order and we find that serious allegations of financial irregularities have been made in the same. hence we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.3. learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the g.o. dated 31,3.1984. annexure-4 to the writ petition in which it has been mentioned that if the charge-sheet has not been served within six months the suspended employee should be reinstated. in our opinion, this g.o. is only directory and not mandatory. there may be cases where very serious allegations are made against a person and that person may be of such a nature that he manages to see to it that charge-sheet is not served on to him within six months and then he may claim that he should be automatically reinstated. we do not accept this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.4. however, on the facts and circumstances of the case we direct that the charge-sheet should be issued to the petitioner preferably within three weeks of submission of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned and the enquiry should be completed preferably within three months thereafter in accordance with law. the petition is disposed of.

Full Judgment

M. Katju and S.K. Singh, JJ.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is challenging the suspension order dated 28.4.2001. We have perused the impugned suspension order and we find that serious allegations of financial irregularities have been made in the same. Hence we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the G.O. dated 31,3.1984. Annexure-4 to the writ petition in which it has been mentioned that if the charge-sheet has not been served within six months the suspended employee should be reinstated. In our opinion, this G.O. is only directory and not mandatory. There may be cases where very serious allegations are made against a person and that person may be of such a nature that he manages to see to it that charge-sheet is not served on to him within six months and then he may claim that he should be automatically reinstated. We do not accept this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case we direct that the charge-sheet should be issued to the petitioner preferably within three weeks of submission of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned and the enquiry should be completed preferably within three months thereafter in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial