Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UTTAR PRADESH FOREST CORPORATION LUCKNOW & ORS. versus VIJAY KUMAR YADAV & ANR.

Decided
23 November 2021
Judges listed
M.R. SHAH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Case Partly allowed

Citations

Official
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 432 ยท 2021 INSC 778

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Appeal No. 54718 of 2005, Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation Lucknow and others have preferred the present appeal.

p. 433, margin A

2

At the outset, it is required to be noted that vide order dated 03.07.2019, this Court issued notice limited to the extent as to whether the High Court ought to have maintained the punishment order for recovery of Rs.2,46,922.56, which was also held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer.

p. 433, margin B

3

We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

p. 433, margin C

4

At the outset, it is required to be noted that in so far as the charge of causing loss to the extent of Rs.2,46,922.56, it was held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer. However, there was disagreement on the part of the Disciplinary Authority so far as other charges, which were held to be not proved by the Enquiry Officer and without issuing any notice on the said disagreement, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded further and passed the punishment order, which was held to be bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, once the charge of causing loss to the extent of Rs.2,46,922.56 was held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer, the High Court ought to have maintained the punishment order for recovery of Rs.2,46,922.56.

p. 433, margin C

5

In view of the above, we modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court to the extent of maintaining the order of punishment for recovery of Rs.2,46,922.56 for the charge which was also held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer. It is reported that the respondent employee has since retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, whatever further amount is due and payable towards the retirement benefits, which may be available under the law, the same may be paid to the respondent after making recovery/deducting Rs.2,46,922.56.

p. 433, margin E

6

Present appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

p. 433, margin G