CHANDRAMANI MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Sanjay Dwivedi,J. -
(1.) Vide order dated 01.09.2020, the respondents/State were granted time to file return, failing which their right to file return shall stand forfeited automatically. Despite that, learned Panel Lawyer is again seeking time to file return, whereas learned counsel for the petitioner submits that return of the respondents is not required in the matter because he is confining his arguments to the legal aspect involved in the matter, therefore, this petition may be heard on the basis of facts mentioned in the petition itself.
(2.) Considering the aforesaid, this petition is heard finally.
(3.) By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 11.07.2013 (Annexure-P/4) and 12.05.2017 (Annexure-P/7). Vide order dated 11.07.2013 (Annexure-P/4), the respondents inflicted minor penalty of withholding of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect upon the petitioner and vide order dated dated 12.05.2017 (Annexure-P/7), the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner wherein he had assailed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.