Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC385; [1991(62)FLR137]; JT1990(4)SC554; 1990(2)SCALE1152; (1991)1SCC362; [1990]Supp3SCR354; 1991(1)LC276(SC); (1991)2UPLBEC959
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Invoking Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 161(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, the Assistant Inspector General, Government Railway Police, Patiala, passed the impugned order dated April 7, 1981 dismissing the petitioner from service with immediate effect. The reasons assigned for dispensing with the departmental enquiry contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution are set out in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, which reads as under:And whereas it has been reported that he has thrown threats that he with the help of other police employees will not allow holding of any department enquiry against him and he and his associates will not hesitate to cause physical injury to the witnesses as well as the enquiry officer. 2. The dismissal order is based on the allegation that the appellant was instigating his fellow police officials to cause indiscipline, show insubordination and exhibit disloyalty; that he was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2245; JT1988(3)SC814; 1989LabIC1224; 1988(2)SCALE1502; 1988Supp(1)SCC663; [1988]Supp3SCR323
N.D. Ojha, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the Judgment dated 8th March, 1976 of the Guwahati High Court in Civil Rule No. 261 of 1973. The appellant who was a Sub-Inspector of Police in Assam was dismissed by the Superintendent of Police, Darrang district, Tezpur, by Order dated 29th January, 1973. This order was passed without compliance with the requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution on the ground that it was a case to which the provisions of Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) were attracted. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Inspector-General of Police, Assam (Shillong). The said appeal having been dismissed he challenged the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order under Article 226 of the Constitution in Civil Rule No. 261 of 1973 referred to above. The various submissions made on behalf of the appellant did not, however, find favour with the Learned Judges who heard the civil rule mentioned above resulting ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 94(2001)DLT394(SC); JT2001(9)SC187; 2001(7)SCALE451; (2002)10SCC15
Pattanaik, J.1. In this batch of appeals the judgment of Delhi High Court, canceling the allotment made by the concerned minister from out of his so-called discretionary quota on petroleum dealership as well as LPG dealership is under challenge. Prior to 1995, the Minister of Petroleum in exercise of his discretion had been allotting retail outlets for petroleum products, LPG dealership and SKO dealership, without having any prescribed norms. A Public Interest Litigation had been filed in this Court by center for Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution, praying that guidelines to regulate the exercise of discretion in the matter of such allotment, which results in exercise of the discretion arbitrarily be fixed. It may be stated that initially a prayer had also been made in that application to cancel the dealership in favour of respondent No. 4, but that prayer stood deleted and an amended petition was filed as the said respondent did not accept the dealership i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC305
G.B. PATTANAIK, J.1. In this batch of appeals the judgment of the Delhi High Court, cancelling the allotment made by the Minister concerned from out of his so-called discretionary quota on petroleum dealership as well as LPG dealership is under challenge. Prior to 1995, the Minister of Petroleum in exercise of his discretion had been allotting retail outlets for petroleum products, LPG dealership and SKO dealership, without having any prescribed norms. A public interest litigation had been filed in this Court by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution, praying that guidelines to regulate the exercise of discretion in the matter of such allotment, which results in exercise of the discretion arbitrarily be fixed. It may be stated that initially a prayer had also been made in that application to cancel the dealership in favour of Respondent 4, but that prayer stood deleted and an amended petition was filed as the said respondent did not accept the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.3.2007 passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court setting aside the judgment and decree passed in favour of the appellant herein and thereby upholding the order of punishment awarded to the appellant. 2. The appellant was working as Head Constable in Punjab Police. He absented from duty on 13.10.1984 which was recorded vide D.D.R. No. 2 at 10.00 A.M. It is alleged on behalf of the respondents that neither did he pray for any leave for his absence nor did he intimate the authorities the reasons for not attending the duty. The appellant after absenting from duty for 39 days reported back on 22.11.1984. Even at that stage, he did not produce any document regarding his illness or any evidence to indicate that he was admitted in any hospital. 3. Consequently, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant for awarding major punishment. In the said proceedings, the appellant appeared and contested the matter....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant, a Police Constable, while he was working in the police station Rahatgarh, District Sagar along with A.S.I. Lakhan Tiwari and Head Constable Jagdish Prasad Tiwari stated to have received an amount of Rs.3,000 for not implicating certain persons involved in Crime No. 4 of 2002 charged under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506(B), 34 IPC. A complaint to that effect was filed by one Kundan Rajak, a resident of Village Sothia, PS Rahatgarh. Acting on that complaint, the appellant was charge-sheeted, along with two others, vide proceedings dated 6.5.2002 by the Superintendant of Police, Sagar. The following are the charges leveled against the appellant:1) He demonstrated gross negligence and lack of interest in discharge of his duty by not implicating all the persons involved in the crime.2) He demonstrated misconduct by accepting Rs.3,000 from the complainant Kundan Rajak for lodging a report in the police station.3. Appellant filed a detailed re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9486 OF2014(arising out of SLP (C) No.26760 of 2013) |STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |RAMANAND PANDEY |.....RESPONDENT(S) | JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Leave granted. Matter heard finally as counsel on either side, who were ready to argue the matter, made a specific request in this behalf. The instant appeal arises out of the judgment dated July 10, 2012 rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh whereby writ appeal filed by the appellants herein has been dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge passed in the writ petition, which was preferred by the respondent herein, has been affirmed. The learned Single Judge of the High Court had allowed the writ petition of the respondent in which challenge to the order dated November 25, 2006, whereby the respondent was reverted from the post of Agriculture Development Officer (for short, 'ADO'),...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5842 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.16640 OF2017 STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. .....APPELLANT(S) ATINDRA NATH BHATTACHARYYA & ANR. .....RESPONDENT(S) VERSUS JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.Leave granted.2) 3) The order of the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta dated April 7, 2017 is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. The respondent - Atindra Nath Bhattacharyya was charge sheeted on December 28, 1999 containing 16 charges on the ground that while working as Chief Manager of Baghbazar Branch of the Bank from November 19, 1997 to September 9, 1998, he has committed various irregularities pertaining to credit and local clearing instruments. The inquiry officer appointed conducted inquiry in respect of charges levelled against the respondent and submitted Page 1 of 74) 5) his report dated January 14, 2002 to the Appointing Authority which was also forwarded to the respondent on April 12,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023INSC652IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2186 OF2023(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6262/2023) YASHODHAN SINGH & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. .RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of an Order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the High Court at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.4235 of 2022.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case according to the Complainant-Respondent No.2 herein are that he got registered an FIR bearing No.186/2018 on 09.06.2018 at around 21.45 at P.S. Hathras Junction District Hathras Uttar Pradesh under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 452 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) against the appellants herein alleging that appellant Nos. 1-7 (summoned accused) went to the Complainant-Respondent No.2s house and started hurling abuses and firing, which consequently resulted in the Complainants injuries and the death of his two brothers. A charge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10913 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) No.25742 OF2015 H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. .... APPELLANT VERSUS MAHESH DAHIYA .... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN. J Leave granted.2. This Appeal has been filed by H. P. State Electricity Board, questioning the judgment of Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court dated 09.04.2015 in LPA No.340 of 2012. Letters Patent Appeal was filed by appellant against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 09.04.2012 in Writ Petition CWP No.522 of 2010 by which judgment the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the order of punishment of compulsory retirement as well as order of the Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal were set-aside with direction to reinstate the writ petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits. Board was also directed to open the sealed cover and promote the writ petitioner to the post of Superintending E...
Tag this Judgment!