AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 174 wordsArindam Sinha, J
Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client never procured social status certificate. Inspite thereof there was final order dated 12th November, 2009 directing, inter alia, appropriate disciplinary action to be initiated and upon his employer also directed accordingly. His client stood suspended on 25th April, 2008, soon after initiation of the purported enquiry by, inter alia, memo dated 18th January, 2008.
It appears from impugned final order there is no reference to a caste certificate procured by petitioner.
Mr. Babu, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and prays for adjournment to obtain instruction.
The writ petition being of year 2010 and impugning final order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee, it was to be decided within three months therefrom as per direction in Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in AIR 1995 SC 94. In the circumstances, there should not be adjournment but it is granted as peremptory.
List on 1st December, 2022.
...............................................