DISTRICT:
KOLKATA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT
JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
W. P. No. (W) of 2013
Subject Matter
relating to: -
Under Group VI of
the Classification List.
Cause Title
Shri Satya Narayan Gayen,
………… Petitioner.
Versus
Unit Trust of India
Asset Management Company Limited, and
others.
……….Respondents.
Advocate on Record:
Ashok Kumar Singh
Advocate
Bar Association, Room No. 15
High Court,
DISTRICT: KOLKATA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT
JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
W. P. No. (W) of 2013
In the Matter of:
Shri Satya Narayan Gayen,
………… Petitioner.
Versus
Unit Trust of India
Asset Management Company Limited, and
others.
……….Respondents.
I N D E X
|
Sl. No. |
Particulars of Papers |
Annexure |
Page |
|
1. |
List of Dates |
|
C |
|
2. |
Points of Law |
|
D - E |
|
3. |
Writ Application |
|
1 - 19 |
|
4. |
Xerox copy of employment status. |
P1 |
20 |
|
5. |
Xerox copy of the letter dated 22/10/2013 sent to the respondent
no. 2. |
P2 |
21 - 24 |
|
6. |
Photocopies of the GDEntry, written complain and the First
Information Report. |
P3 |
25 - 33 |
|
7. |
Photocopies of The Office Order No. 99 of 2013-14 along with the suspension
letter. |
P4 |
34 - 36 |
LIST OF DATES
|
10-12-1990 |
Joining employment under Respondents. |
|
07-10-2013 |
Respondent no.4, directed your
petitioner to report on urgent, at Mumbai Office. |
|
08-10-2013 to 10-10-2013 |
Interrogated your petitioner under
threat, coercion and induced and extort confession, by the respondents. |
|
22-10-2013 |
Letter / Representation to M.D. UTI
AMC Limited. |
|
28-10-2013 |
General Diary made at Police Station
about threat of Respondent, and Written Complaint submitted. |
|
10-11-2013 |
General Diary and F.I.R. made at
Police Station. |
|
11-11-2013 |
Suspension Order being Order no. 99 of
2013 – 14, and Letter of Suspension, being no. UT/O-DHRD-1558/ IR-5(4) / 2013
– 14, dated November 11, 2013. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
POINTS OF LAW
INVOLVED IN THIS INSTANT WRIT APPLICATION
I.
Whether the impugned actions/inactions are wholly
illegal and without jurisdiction and ultravires the Article 14, 16, 21, and 311
of the Constitution of India.
II.
Whether the impugned actions on part of the respondent
authorities are colourable, arbitrary and discriminatory.
III.
Whether a person can be removed from his service by a
letter of suspension, which has been issued by a person, who is not superior to
him.
IV.
Whether a person can be suspended
except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against
him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those
charges.
V.
Whether the respondent
authorities ought to have held proper enquiry before taking such a harsh step
against the petitioner, i.e. suspension from employment.
VI.
Whether the purported acts and or omissions of the
Respondent Authorities, has ever been well described as per provisions of UTI
Asset Management Company ( Staff ) Rules’ 2003.
VII.
Whether where the findings of misconduct are based on no legal
evidence and the conclusion is one to which no reasonable man could come, the
findings can be rejected as perverse.
VIII. Whether in the instant
case as the conclusion of the respondent authorities has been based on conjecture
and surmises and mere ipse dixit of the competent authority, the same ought to
be quashed forthwith.
IX.
Whether the petitioner has been
a victim of executive fiat.
No comments:
Post a Comment