In a writ petition, the Court quashed charge-sheets issued to a retired employee post-superannuation. It held that Punjab Civil Services Rule 2.2(b) mandates specific prior government sanction, which cannot be implied from the issuance of a charge-sheet.
The impugned charge-sheets were quashed.
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.
-1-
C.W.P. No.8277 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.8277 of 2010 Date of Decision.25.02.2012
Ashok Kumar Bakshi son of Sh. A.L. Bakshi
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Paramjit Batta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, Mr. Saroj Malakar, Advocate and Mr. J.P. Bhatt, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
C.W.P. No.8277 of 2010
-2-
Government, which for HUDA, must be substituted as sanction of HUDA.
C.W.P. No.8277 of 2010 -3-
the manner contemplated by law.
February 25, 2012 Pankaj*
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a charge-sheet issued after retirement is valid without prior mandatory government sanction?
Whether the issue of charge-sheet constitutes sufficient sanction under Punjab Civil Services Rule 2.2(b)?
Whether proceedings initiated without valid sanction require quashing and de novo start?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok Kumar Bakshi
State of Haryana
HUDA
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
