Disposed

Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Aug 2017CWP/1443/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of an amended civil writ petition by allowing an application to file an appeal against withholding of promotion and directing the disciplinary authority to share documents. The court set a timeline for the appeal decision and the disposal of pending disciplinary proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to file an appeal within three weeks; Disciplinary authority directed to hand over documents within one week and decide appeal within three months.

Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1443 of 2017

¶3

Date of decision: 17^th August, 2017

¶4

Rajesh Kumar Gupta Petitioner Versus Union of India and others Respondents

¶5

__________________________________________________ Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting¹ :

¶8

For the Petitioner: Mr. B.C. Negi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Rita Goswami, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No. 1.

¶9

Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Devyani Sharma, counsel for respondent No. 2.

¶10

Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shweta Joolka, counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4.

¶11

Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sameer Thakur, counsel for respondent No. 5.

¶12

¶13

1 Whether Reporters of local newspaper are permitted to see the judgment ?

¶14

¶15

Per Sanjay Karol , A.C.J. (Oral)

¶16

CMP No. 6654 of 2017

¶17

For the reasons, so assigned in the application, the

¶18

same is allowed, subject to just exceptions. Amended writ petition is already on record. Application stands disposed of.

¶19

CWP No. 1443 of 2017

¶20

With the consent of the parties, this petition is

¶21

disposed of in the following terms:-

¶22

(a) In relation to memorandum, dated 9^th August, 2016

¶23

and thereafter 24^th October, 2016 (Annexure P-5), which has culminated into the passing of order, dated 8^th March, 2017 (Annexure P-12) by the disciplinary authority, whereby minor penalty of with-holding of promotion stands imposed, petitioner shall file an appeal within a period of three weeks from today. The same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, by an authority, authorized by the Board of Directors of respondent No. 2. It stands clarified that considering the averments made by the petitioner, such authority shall be other than respondent No. 3.

¶24

(b) The disciplinary authority agrees to hand over all documents, sought for by the petitioner in relation to memo, dated 9^th August, 2016/24^th October, 2016 within a period of

¶25

¶26

one week from today, more specifically the report pertaining to

¶27

S.K. Shukla Committee, as referred to in communication dated 12^th January, 2017 (Annexure P-11).

¶28

(c) The petitioner undertakes to fully co-operate and it is expected of the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.

¶29

(d) Insofar as disciplinary proceedings, initiated vide memo dated 15^th May, 2017 (Annexure P-13) is concerned, petitioner undertakes to fully co-operate and participate therein. Additional response to the memo, if any, be positively filed within a period of four weeks.

¶30

The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interim order dated 29^th June, 2017 stands vacated. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶31

( Sanjay Karol ), Acting Chief Justice

¶32

17^th August, 2017(K) ( Sandeep Sharma ), Judge

Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp Vs Jaid Rath

Raj Kumar Vs State of Hp

Bir Singh Mehta Vs State of Hp

Issar Goods Carrier Vs State of Hp

Madan Lal Verma Vs Municipal Corporation

Balwan Singh Pathania Vs R.D. Dhiman and Another