TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill View
Don't Miss
Advertisement

HSWC staff: Stay on termination of services

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Chandigarh, July 7

Advertisement

Issuing notice of motion to IAS officer Sanjeev Verma, Haryana State Warehousing Corporation, the State of Haryana and another respondent, Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court today stayed the operation of an order vide which the services of a district manger were terminated.

Advertisement

Petitioner Sandeep Kumar Sharma said he was being made a scapegoat due to the litigation and issues between two officers — Sanjeev Verma and Ashok Khemka.

Sharma added there was some personal dispute between the two officers. Khemka was the Managing Director at the time of his selection. “Due to the issues between the two officers, the present Managing Director (Verma) in order to settle scores with Khemka started looking at the old files and projected the so called `recruitment scam’ during Khemka’s tenure in the corporation, which was reported in the newspapers”.

Appearing before Justice Grewal’s Bench on the petitioner’s behalf, senior advocate Birender Singh Rana submitted that Sharma was duly selected as the district manger in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the respondents. He fulfilled the essential qualifications and had been serving for more than 12 years. There was nothing adverse regarding his work and conduct and was attain the age of superannuation next year.

Advertisement

But his services were terminated vide the impugned order on the ground that he did not have the requisite experience, although he was working in a commercial organisation, which was examined by the scrutiny committee prior to his appointment.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement