VINOD KUMAR SHAHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Vinod Kumar Shahi
State of Uttarakhand And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Admit the petition.
(2.) At the time of final hearing, this matter has become easier for the Court to deal with the matter. The petitioner, when he was alive, filed this writ petition to challenge the order of dismissal, which was passed on account of the unauthorized absence for a long time.
(3.) On 08.06.2012, this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, though at the interlocutory stage found as follows:--
On merits, this Court does not find it fit and proper case for interference, as PAC is a disciplinary force and remained absent from service without any authority is a serious charge, which has been proved against the petitioner. All the same, this Court is also conscious of the fact that the petitioner has put in about 21 years before his dismissal from service. A Government Order dated 27.10.2008 has also been brought to the notice of this Court where in such matters where an employee has put in more than 20 years of service, compulsory retirement can be considered. Therefore, at this stage, without going on merit, this Court is only making request to Mr. Lalit Samant, Brief Holder present for the State, in this regard, to get instruction in writing as to whether the State Government can convert the compulsory retirement. The instruction must be in writing.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.