Disposed

Ram Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Aug 2009CWP/11664/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Cartogrid disposal of Court upheld that the competent authority must consider the inquiry report on embezzlement allegations and take appropriate action after observing natural justice within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to consider complaint and inquiry report and take appropriate action within three months observing natural justice.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP. No. 11664 of 2009 Date of Decision: 5.8.2009.

Ram Singh

--Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶7

--Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.

¶9

Present:Mr. Naveen Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

¶11

PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)

¶12

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a request for correction in the cause title of the petition, wherein, respondent no.5 is shown to be the Sarpanch of village Kishorepur, Tehsil & District Palwal instead of village Rajpura, Tehsil & District Palwal.

¶13

Prayer allowed.

¶14

Correction made in the Open Court.

¶15

Notice of motion.

¶16

Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶17

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction for the removal of respondent no.5, Sarpanch of village Rajpura. A complaint was made against respondent no.5. An inquiry has already been conducted on the said complaint and submitted to the concerned Deputy Commissioner. It is alleged that the allegations against respondent no.5 for embezzlement of funds have been found to be established during the inquiry. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner is not taking any action against respondent no.5 on the basis of the complaint and the

¶18

CWP. No. 11664 of 2009 -2-

¶19

inquiry, conducted. The petitioner has accordingly filed this petition seeking direction for removal of respondent no.5.

¶20

It is the competent authority who has to take appropriate decision on consideration of the matter before it.

¶21

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to consider the complaint and the inquiry report and take appropriate action thereon in accordance with law by observing principles of natural justice, within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the respondent no.2.

¶22

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶23

5.8.2009 lucky

Ram Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Devinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jasbir Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sangaat Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kapoor Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Chhachhrauli Harijan Coop. Collect. Farming Soc. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Jasmail Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.