Disposed

Ghanshyam Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Aug 2009CWP/11570/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking reinstatement of a suspended Development Officer. The petitioner was discharged in a corruption case and sought a decision on his representations regarding his suspension and service position.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation dated 21.4.2009 expeditiously, preferably within three months.

Ghanshyam Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.W.P. No. 11570 of 2009

¶3

DATE OF DECISION : 04.08.2009

¶4

Ghanshyam Singh

¶5

.... PETITIONER

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and another

¶8

..... RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )

¶13

The petitioner, who was working as Development Officer in the Haryana State Cooperative Housing Federation Limited and was placed under suspension vide order dated 23.4.2007 (Annexure P-1), has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondents to re-instate him in service, as vide order dated 8.5.2008 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Special Court, Yamuna Nagar, he has been discharged in FIR No. 6 dated 5.4.2007 registered against him at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Panchkula, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that due to the registration of the aforesaid FIR, he was placed under suspension. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the departmental enquiry was initiated against the

¶15

CWP No. 11570 of 2009

¶16

-2-

¶17

petitioner, but the main reason for placing him under suspension was registration of the aforesaid FIR, in which he was arrested. It is the further case of the petitioner that in view of his discharge, he made representations dated 13.5.2008 and 21.4.2009 to respondent No.2, copies of which have been annexed with the petition as Annexures P-3 and P-4, but till date, neither the representations have been decided nor the petitioner has been reinstated. Counsel states that at this stage, the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to consider and decide his representations, expeditiously.

¶18

In view of the above, without issuing notice of motion as it will un-necessary delay the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation dated 21.4.2009 (Annexure P-4), in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.

¶19

August 04, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE

Ghanshyam Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr.

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

Rakesh Kumar Bhatia Vs National Ins.Co.Ltd.& Ors.

Jit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jagdish Parshad Vs Dhbvnl and Ors.

Lakhbir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Savita Vs D.H.B.V.N. Ltd. and Ors.

Mohan Singh etc. Vs Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corpn.