Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Subhash Chandra Saxena v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

    Court No. - 59

    Case :- WRIT - A No. - 61056 of 2015

    Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Saxena Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Sunder Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mangla Prasad Rai

    Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

    Petitioner was initially appointed as a Driver in the respondent Corporation. It appears that on account of medical reasons, the petitioner was subsequently found unfit to discharge the duties of a Driver, and according to the petitioner, an order came to be passed by the respondents on 13th April, 2013, assigning the work of a Painter to the petitioner, which he has been performing. The petitioner contends that though he is yet to attain the age of superannuation, but the respondents have now issued a notice calling for petitioner's explanation as to why he be not removed from the service. Petitioner also contends that to the notice in hand, he has already submitted a reply before the authorities on 15th October, 2015, but the same has not been considered so far.

    Sri M.P. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that action of the respondent Corporation is in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and at this stage, only a notice has been issued to which the petitioner has an opportunity to submit reply. It is contended that reply of the petitioner would be considered, in accordance with law.

    This Court finds that at this stage, only a notice has been issued to the petitioner, and an opportunity to submit reply has been given in the matter to the petitioner. The respondents are expected to consider the reply, in accordance with law, by way of a reasoned speaking order. In such circumstances, this Court would not be inclined to entertain any challenge to the show cause notice.

    The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction that the respondents shall proceed in the matter, strictly in accordance with law, and the reply already submitted to the show cause notice by the petitioner would be considered with reference to the provisions of the service rules and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

    Order Date :- 2.11.2015/Anil

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Subhash Chandra Saxena v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
    (Nov 2, 2015)