w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Suresh Ghoshi v/s State & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- M SURESH COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36910MH2004PTC149806

Company & Directors' Information:- SURESH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1941PTC003295

    Civil Writ Petition No. 2962 of 1999

    Decided On, 07 July 1999

    At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MADAN

    For the Appellant: Naina Saraf, Advocate. For the Respondents: S.M. Mehta, General, Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. The petitioner who is elected Member of Municipal Board, Dausa and subsequently elected as Chairman of the said Municipal Board has moved this Court by way of instant writ petition challenging the order dated 20-5-1999 (Annexure-2) following the direction of the State Government consequent upon which the enquiry which was earlier being conducted by Joint LR (II) was entrusted to another enquiry officer who is of the equivalent competent rank of Joint LR (L), Legal Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The case of the petitioner in short is that he was elected as Ward Member of the Municipal Board, Dausa for short 'the Board' and subsequently elected as Chairman of the said Board. It is alleged that on the basis of some false and frivolous complaints received against the petitioner, preliminary enquiry was directed to be held against him and in pursuance thereof, the Director Local Bodies, Jaipur, (respondent No. 2) sent a show cause notice to the petitioner to which, he filed reply which was not found satisfactory by respondent No. 2 resulting in passing of order of suspension dated 16-1-1999.

3. Soon after passing of the suspension order as aforesaid, respondent No. 2 also forwarded the case of the petitioner for Initiation of regular enquiry to senior judicial officer of the rank of Joint L. R. (ii). Legal Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. The Board having resorted to the provisions of Sections 63(2) and 63(3) of the Rajas than Municipalities Act, 1959 for short the "Act of 1959" and after drawing up a statement of the case setting out distinctly the charges against the petitioner, forwarded the same along with the preliminary enquiry report to the aforesaid judicial officer i.e. Joint LR (II), Legal Department, Secretariat. Jaipur who Js equivalent to the rank of a District Judge. This fact has not been disputed by the petitioner that the matter was referred to the Joint LR (II), Jaipur in accordance with law having resort to the provisions of the Act of 1959 and the Joint LR (II) commenced the proceedings to enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner on the basis of the charges formulated against him and alter giving him due opportunity of hearing, recorded evidence of witnesses who were summoned to depose before the enquiry officer during the course of enquiry and pending the enquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 16-1-1999 by having resort to the provisions of Section 63(4) of the Act which provides thus :-

"(4) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the State Government may place under suspension a member against whom proceedings have been commenced under this section until the conclusion of the inquiry and the passing of the final order and the member so suspended shall not be entitled to take part in any proceedings of the board or otherwise perform the duties of a member thereof."

4. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of enquiry proceedings before the concerned judicial officer, an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer viz., Joint LR and Judicial Enquiry Officer. Legal Department, Secretariat, Jaipur to provide the certified copy of the statement of the witness in response to which, the said officer vide his letter dated 19-5-1999 (Annexure-1) informed the petitioner that the judicial enquiry was directed to be initiated against him in accordance with the provisions of Section 63(3) of the Act under the directions of the State Government which is confidential and for which neither the Secretariat has any concern with it nor there is any provision in the Secretariat regarding issuance of certified copies of the statements of witnesses and further, after recording the evidence of departmental witness, 11 witnesses of the delinquent have been examined while remaining evidence is yet to be concluded and the matter is fixed for 21-5-1999. Thereafter, on 20-5-1999 a communication was sent to Joint LR (II) Legal Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur by Deputy Secretary, State Government, Secretariat, Jaipur that in pursuance of the decision taken by the State Govt., the enquiry which had earlier been entrusted to Joint LR (II) has now been entrusted to the Joint LR (L), Legal Department, Secretariat, Jv.aipur and as such petitioner was requested to send the relevant documents connected with the enquiry directly to the Joint LR (L).

5. Feeling aggrieved by the Order dated 20-5-1999 (Annexure-2) regarding change of enquiry officer in place of Joint LR (II) to Joint LR (L), the petitioner has come up before this Court by way of instant writ petition on the grounds inter alia that the State Govt. does not have any power to change the enquiry officer and it is beyond the scope and competence of its power to direct the transfer of enquiry proceedings from Joint LR (II) to Joint LR (L) and this change has resulted in effecting the petitioner's case adversely. It has further been contended by Mrs. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner that once the enquiry is handed over to a judicial officer, the State Government looses Its right of dominating the enquiry proceedings since the transfer of enquiry proceedings clearly shows the interference of the State Govemment which makes the enquiry illegal and it ceases to be impartial. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that State Government is unnecessarily trying to influence the inquiry proceedings and get the report as per its own wishes and hence, the impugned order dated 20-5-1999 is not sustainable in law being totally "non speaking. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed this fact that out of departmental witnesses examined so far, 11 witnesses of the petitioner have already been examined and last opportunity has been given for concluding the remaining evidence for which the date was fixed as 21-5-1999. By way of alternative argument, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that transferring the enquiry proceedings at this stage clearly shows that order (Annexure-2) has been passed with some ulterior motive to influence the enquiry report. It has further been contended that before passing the impugned -order dated 20-5-99 (Ann.-2), no notice or prior opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and it was essential far the competent authority to at least give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

6. In reply to show cause notice, Shri S. M. Mehta, learned Advocate General while controverting the aforesaid contention of the petitioner has contended that though, it is not disputed that the petitioner was elected as Ward Member and subsequently as Chairman of the Board, but it has been denied that it was on the basis of any false and frivolous complaint against the petitioner the notice was sent to the petitioner by respondent No. 2. It has been further been contended that it is only on the basis of the preliminary enquiry held against the petitioner earlier with regard to charges framed against him which were prima facie proved as a result of preliminary enquiry and it is on the basis of the same that decision was taken by the appropriate authority to place the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 16 1-1999. It is only thereafter that a judicial enquiry to the rank of a District Judge i.e. Joint LR (II) Legal Department, Secretariat, Jaipur was entrusted and he was appointed as Enquiry Officer to initiate enquiry proceedings against the petitioner. Mr. Mehta further contended that though this fact is not in dispute that enquiry proceedings were pending before Joint LR (II) and later on it was entrusted to Joint LR (L) but, it was on account of the administrative exigency and compelling circumstance of the State Government that the earlier Judicial officer (enquiry officer) was due to retire shortly and it is for the administrative reasons that it had become necessary to withdraw the proceedings pending before him and entrust the same to another judicial officer who is a member of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Officer and of equivalent competent rank for which the petitioner should have no reason to complain of. The allegation regarding the bias and mala fides were vehemently denied by the learned Advocate General stating that no motive can be attributed either to State Government or to the Judicial officer and it cannot be said that fair enquiry has been prejudiced in any manner.

7. Mrs. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of her contention has placed reliance upon the Judgment of this Court in the matter of Rameshwari Devi Mewarav. State of Rajasthan (1999) 1 WLC 420. J have examined the ratio of the aforesaid judgment and in my view, the same is neither applicable nor attracted to the Instant case since the legality and propriety of the said order of removal passed against the petitioner who was Chairperson of the Municipal Board consequent upon which, he was disqualified from contesting the election of the Board for a period of 5 years, was subject-matter of challenge before the learned single Judge of this Court at Jodhpur. The petitioner was debarred from contesting the election of the Board for 5 years on account of malpractices which have been proved against him, which is not the case here.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon the provisions of Section 18 of the General Clauses Act, 1955 for short 'the Act' which provides that where by any law, a power to make any appointment is conferred by an appropriate authority, then, unless a different intention appears. The authority having for the time being power to make the appointment shall also have power to suspend, remove or dismiss any person appointed by itself or any other authority in exercise of that power. As a corollary to it, the power of the State Government also includes power to initiation of enquiry by any Judicial officer of competent rank against the delinquent for reasons of administrative exigencies to entrust the same to another officer of equivalent rank If for some reasons the earlier officer is unable to proceed with the matter. The object of this provision is to enable the delinquent on the basis of natural Justice in all fairness that he should be given fair and proper opportunity of hearing before any order resulting in suspension, removal or dismissal is passed against him- Initiation of Departmental Enquiry in my considered view does not entail any civil consequences which may affect the rights of the delinquent in any manner whatsoever.

9. In my view, the competence of State Govt. is not open to challenge on this or any other grounds as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, norany mala fides can be attributed to such decision of State Govt.

10. In my view, the State Government had adopted all possible modes as permissible under the law before effecting change of enquiry officer and it is only on the basis of Notification dt 11-11-1959 published in Rajasthan Gazette Part-IV C on 26-11-1959 by which the State Government has withdrawn the enquiry proceedings from one judicial officer to another and when such exercise has been carried out in accordance with law the former ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, as having been succeeded by the latter within the scope and ambit of Sub-clause (a) of Clause (ix) of the aforesaid Gazette Notification. The relevant sub-Clauses (b) and (c) Clause (ix) of the aforesaid Notification, are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference :--

"Clause (ix)(b). Where the Judicial Officer is prevented by death, transfer or other cause from conducting the enquiry, his successor may deal with any evidence or memorandum taken down or made by him or under his direction under these Rules and may proceed with the enquiry from the stage at which his predecessor left it.

Clause (ix)(c). When an enquiry is transferred from one Judicial Officer to another Judicial Officer, the former shall be deemed to cease to exercise Jurisdiction therein, and to be succeeded by the later within the meaning of sub-clause (a) above."

11. Consequently, I am of the view that petitioner has not at all any ground to challenge the impugned-order dated 20-5-1999 (Annexure-2) which in my view is just and proper and within the scope and competence of the State Government having been passed in accordance with law and relevant provisions of Notification dated 11 -11 -1959 which is not open to challenge.

12. In the instant case, the result of the enquiry is yet to be awaited and it is not the stage when the petitioner should

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

have filed the writ petition and rather the petitioner has been ill advised to move this Court by way of instant writ petition which is misconceived and not tenable even on merits. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not prejudice the petitioner's case in the pending enquiry proceedings. 13. Forthereasonsstated above, I am of the view that no case is made out for Interference with the impugned order dt. 20-5-1999 (Annexure-2) and to stay the proceedings in the enquiry pending against the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer viz. Joint LRII, Government Secretariat, Jaipur i.e. respondent No. 3. Since the petitioner has already participated in the enquiry proceedings at the stage where it was left by the predecessor in Office who was equivalent to the rank of Joint LR II from whom respondent No. 3 took over the charge on 20-5-1999, I am of the view that the pending enquiry should almost achieve its logical conclusion from the stage from where it was left. I am informed by the learned Advocate General that the evidence of most of the witnesses has already been recorded and proceedings are at final stage. 14. The writ petition being devoid of any merit is consequently dismissed with cost assessed to Rs. 1000/-. In the interest of justice, I direct that the enquiry proceedings should be completed expeditiously. Final Result : Dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

29-07-2020 Yogesh Suresh Chaudhari Versus M/S. Auto Wheels, Kubota Tractor Sales Services & Spares, Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-07-2020 Dr. Uma Suresh Versus The Authorised Officer, The National Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
10-07-2020 Suresh Kumar & Others Versus Tarun Kapoor & Others High Court of Delhi
25-06-2020 Suresh Versus State of Kerala Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
08-06-2020 Shriram Versus Suresh Kumar (Dead) & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
05-06-2020 Suresh Nair Versus Union of India, Represented by the Ministry of External Affairs, E-Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, Represented by its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 V. Suresh Serve Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
01-05-2020 Bank of Baroda Erstwhile Dena Bank Versus Suresh Chand Seth & Others High Court of Delhi
29-04-2020 Suresh Chandra Mishra Versus State of Odisha & Another High Court of Orissa
28-04-2020 K.S. Suresh Versus The State of Karnataka by Tirumalashettihalli Police Station, Bangaluru High Court of Karnataka
27-04-2020 Dr. Suresh & Others Versus University Grants Commission, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
15-04-2020 Suresh Gordhanbhai Gorasiya Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
20-03-2020 Suresh Chandra Das Versus The State of Tripura to be represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat, New Secretariat Complex, West Tripura & Another High Court of Tripura
19-03-2020 Leelabai Versus Saroja Suresh Salunke High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
17-03-2020 P. Suresh Versus State Rep.by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pattabiram Range, (T-11, Thirunindravur Incharge) High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-03-2020 V.T. Suresh Kumar Versus Managing Director, KSRTC, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
13-03-2020 Suresh Versus State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, on the file of Veppur Police High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 Suresh Bhalchandra Nagarkar & Another Versus Baby Jaywant Shinde High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 K.M. Suresh Babu Versus M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Tiruvannamalai Versus Suresh Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 Aviation Travels Pvt. Ltd. Versus Bhavesha Suresh Goradia & Others Supreme Court of India
28-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Suresh Navnath Londhe & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-02-2020 Suresh Kumar Chauhan Versus Dr. Puneesh Rohtagi High Court of Delhi
25-02-2020 M/s. Zee Telefilms Ltd. (Now Known as Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.) Versus Suresh Productions & Others Supreme Court of India
24-02-2020 S. Suresh Versus The Management Exide Industries Ltd., Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-02-2020 Suresh Chand & Another Versus Suresh Chander (D) Thr LRs. & Others Supreme Court of India
10-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Ashok Suresh Laxman Babar Sainagar Zopadpatti & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-02-2020 D. Suresh Versus The District Collector, Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 Md Mufty Ashadullah Versus Suresh Kr Dhanuka & Others High Court of Gauhati
05-02-2020 Suresh Kumar Choubey (Suresha Choubey now) & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-02-2020 Suresh Tanted & Others Versus State of MP. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
31-01-2020 N.T. Thomas (Wrongly shown as M.T. Thomas in the Judgment in R.C.A) Versus Suresh Pai High Court of Kerala
31-01-2020 H. Suresh Versus State of Karnataka by P.S.I. Mahila Police Station, Shimoga High Court of Karnataka
30-01-2020 Om Prakash Versus Suresh Kumar Supreme Court of India
27-01-2020 State of Maharashtra Versus Suresh Sakharam Sawant & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-01-2020 H. Ashok Versus H. Suresh & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 Suresh Babu Versus The District Registrar,(Administration) Registration Department Integrated Complex, Arakonam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2020 Balakrishnan & Another Versus Suresh Kumar & Others High Court of Kerala
09-01-2020 S. Suresh Versus S. Mohanavel High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-01-2020 P. Suresh Versus The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-12-2019 A. Swarooparani Versus P. Suresh & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-12-2019 Rajasthan Housing Board & Another Versus Suresh Kumar Kajla National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-12-2019 B. Suresh Versus The Licensing Authority, Regional Transport Office, Ariyalur High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-12-2019 M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lr. Versus Mahant Suresh Das & Others Supreme Court of India
12-12-2019 Suresh Kumar Palle Versus The Managing Director, Mumbai & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
05-12-2019 Devendra Suresh Gupta Ramdas Niwas Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
05-12-2019 Laxmi Devi Versus Suresh Mendiratta High Court of Delhi
15-11-2019 Suresh Versus Gunasekar High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-11-2019 M. Siddiq (D) thr. L.Rs V/S Mahant Suresh Das and Others.* Supreme Court of India
08-11-2019 Suresh Kumar Jain & Others Versus Madanlal Jain & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-11-2019 Chandrashekharayya Puttayya Hiremath Versus Suresh Siddangouda Hosagoudar Supreme Court of India
08-11-2019 Yerramreddy Venkata Suresh Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary School Education Seceretariat Buildings Velagapudi at Amaravathi Guntur District High Court of Andhra Pradesh
06-11-2019 M/s. PSS Sports & Recreation Club, Rep. by its President, P. Suresh Kumar Versus The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Neethimedu, Salem & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-11-2019 Suresh & Others V/S State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Perambalur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-10-2019 Kishin T. Panjabi Versus Suresh Kothari High Court of Karnataka
24-10-2019 The State of Kerala Represented by Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Thiruvananthauram & Others Versus Dr. K.G. Suresh, Pathanamthitta High Court of Kerala
16-10-2019 State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus Suresh Kumar Dhruv High Court of Chhattisgarh
14-10-2019 Chandra Sundararaj (died) & Others Versus C.M. Dhinakaran @ Suresh & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-10-2019 A. Suresh Kumar Versus H.N. Sathish High Court of Karnataka
10-10-2019 Maharashtra Vidyarathi Sahayak Mandal, Pune & Others Versus Suresh Deshmukh & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-10-2019 Kerala State Beverages (M And M) Corporation Limited Versus P.P. Suresh & Others Supreme Court of India
26-09-2019 Bir Bajrangi Akhara Versus Suresh Nayyar & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
26-09-2019 Suresh Naik Versus K. Dinesh Kumar High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
25-09-2019 Suresh & Others V/S State by its Inspector of Police, Sethiathope Police Station, Cuddalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-09-2019 Suresh Sharma Versus State of J&K High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
02-09-2019 Suresh Jain Versus Mandeep Singh Batra & Others High Court of Delhi
27-08-2019 M/s. PSS Sports and Recreation Club, represented by its President, P. Suresh Kumar Versus The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2019 Ketan Suresh Pawar & Another Versus Yuvraj Sandeepan Sawant & Another Supreme Court of India
21-08-2019 Narasimhamurthy Versus Suresh Chandra Gupta, Dead by his Lrs: Ravi Agarwal, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-08-2019 Thyssen Krupp Industries India Private Limited Versus Suresh Maruti Chougule & Others Supreme Court of India
21-08-2019 Suresh Chandar Versus Inspector of Police, Ariyur Police Station, Vellore High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-08-2019 The Management, (erstwhile Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd.), Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., Chennai Versus J. Suresh Kumar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2019 S. Suresh Versus A. Mahalakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-08-2019 A. Anandan & Others Versus P. Suresh, Secretary, Valancherry High School Managing Committee, Malappuram & Others High Court of Kerala
06-08-2019 M. Suresh Versus The Inspector of Police, NIB, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2019 Ummidi Venkata Rao Versus Ghanto Suresh Kumar High Court of Andhra Pradesh
31-07-2019 Suresh Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary, Home Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-07-2019 Suresh @ Sureshkumar & Another Versus State by the Inspector of Police Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-07-2019 S. Suresh Babu, Managing Partner, Unnikuttan Construction Company, Kadakkavoor Versus Soorya S. Krishna Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
19-07-2019 Dr. Kshetrimayum Manglem Singh Versus Dr. Suresh Babu, IAS High Court of Manipur
15-07-2019 Dr. Vijay Singh Gupta & Others Versus Suresh Kothari High Court of Chhattisgarh
15-07-2019 Suresh Kumar Pandey Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
15-07-2019 Vanitha & Others Versus V. Suresh & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2019 Suresh Versus The Sub Inspector of Police, Vdakkekara Police Station, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
09-07-2019 Anita Suresh V/S Union of India and Others. High Court of Delhi
08-07-2019 Suresh Nakra Versus Murugesan Adimoolam & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-07-2019 Sheela Suresh Nimkar Versus Vilas Vishnu Chansarkar High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-07-2019 Suresh V/S State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-07-2019 Suresh Yadav Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
25-06-2019 Suraj Pressings Pvt. Limited, Through its Director R.N. Bhat Versus Suresh Rabhaji Gaikwad In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-06-2019 Suresh Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
18-06-2019 G. Suresh Versus Chellapandi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-06-2019 Ashok Yashwant Badve & Others Versus Suresh Tulshiram Bhagwat & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-06-2019 V. Suresh Versus State by P.S. Mahadevapura, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
03-06-2019 Kancham Suresh Versus Telukunta Swaroopa High Court of for the State of Telangana
31-05-2019 Education Rights Trust Represented by its Trustee, C. Suresh Kumar, Bangalore & Others Versus Government of Karnataka Represented by Principal Secretary, Primary Education Dept., Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
31-05-2019 Suresh Chandra Agnihotri Versus U.P. State Road Transport High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
31-05-2019 Dr. P. Suresh Babu IAS Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
15-05-2019 Suresh Kumar Versus State of Haryana & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
15-05-2019 The State (NCT of Delhi) Versus Suresh Gautam & Others High Court of Delhi