Petitioner sought to suspend Respondent No. 3's financial power during inquiry proceedings. Court refused prayer due to lack of record regarding inquiry stage but directed speedy conclusion.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21334 of 2020
Petitioner :- Bhanu Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Islam Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
By means of the present petition, a direction is being sought to be issued to respondent no.1 to cease the financial power of the respondent no.3 during the pendency of the proceedings against respondent nos. 3 & 4 and further to direct the respondent no.1 to conclude the said proceeding at the earliest.
From the record it is evident that the enquiry proceeding against the respondent nos.3 & 4 are going on. The charge-sheet dated 26.02.2020 has been issued by the inquiry officer. The stage of the proceedings before the inquiry officer is not on record.
In view of the said fact, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted. However, it is expected that the inquiry, if pending, proceeding be concluded within the shortest possible time.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of .
Order Date :- 8.12.2020 P Kesari
Bhanu Pratap Singh
State Of U.P.
Sunita Agarwal
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
