CHATRAPALversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2461/2024
Decision Date: 15-02-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC115

 




 Disclaimer 


 
								 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments. 
						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.
						 CHATRAPAL versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 3482024 INSC 115 BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Inquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the appellant were duly established. Inquiry report was accepted and the appellant was dismissed from service. Whether the dismissal of the appellant was justified and was the High Court justified in upholding Findings recorded by Inquiry Officer – Interference – Scope – Appellant appointed as Ardly (a class IV Post) in the Bareilly Judgeship was later transferred and posted as Process Server however, was being paid the salary of Ardly – Aggrieved, appellant made 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.CHATRAPALversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 3482024 INSC 115Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Inquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the appellant were duly established. Inquiry report was accepted and the appellant was dismissed from service. Whether the dismissal of the appellant was justified and was the High Court justified in upholding Findings recorded by Inquiry Officer – Interference – Scope – Appellant appointed as Ardly (a class IV Post) in the Bareilly Judgeship was later transferred and posted as Process Server however, was being paid the salary of Ardly – Aggrieved, appellant made