Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC493; [1960]2SCR569
Shah, J.1. Sardar Kapur Singh (who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant) was admitted by the Secretary of State for India in Council to the Indian Civil Service upon the result of a competitive examination held at Delhi in 1931. After a period of training in the United Kingdom, the appellant returned to India in November, 1933 and was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Ferozepore in the Province of Punjab. He served in the Province in various capacities between the years 1933 and 1947. In July, 1947, he was posted as Deputy Commissioner at Dharamsala and continued to hold that office till February 11, 1948, when he was transferred to Hoshiarpur at which place he continued to hold the office of Deputy Commissioner till a few days before April 14, 1949. On April 13, 1949, the appellant was served with an order passed by the Government of East Punjab suspending him from service. On May 5, 1950, the appellant submitted a representation to the President of India protesting agains...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Delay condoned in SLP (C) No. 25293 of 2008.2. Leave granted.3. This judgment shall dispose of all the above mentioned appeals as common question of law on somewhat similar facts arise in all the appeals for consideration of this Court.4. The Union of India being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 25th February, 2008 has filed the present appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The High Court declined to interfere with the Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') wherein the Tribunal, in exercise of its powers under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act had set aside the orders of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. However, the High Court granted liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the inquiry afresh from the stage of nomination of the inquiry officer.5....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC375; 1954CriLJ993; (1954)IMLJ702(SC); [1954]1SCR1150
Mukherjea, J.1. This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution, praying for a writ, in the nature of certiorari, for calling up the records of certain criminal proceedings stated against the petitioner by the Special Judge, Sessions Court, Delhi, and for quashing the same on the ground that these proceedings are without jurisdiction, having been commenced in violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under article 20(2) of the Constitution.2. The petitioner was a member of the Indian Civil Service and till lately was employed as Secretary to the Ministry of Commerce and Industries in the Government of India. Certain imputations of misbehavior by the petitioner, while holding offices of various descriptions under the Government of India, came to the notice of the Central Government of and the latter being satisfied that there were prima facie good grounds for making an enquiry directed a formal and public enquiry to be made as to the truth or falsity of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Fong Yue Ting v. United States - 149 U.S. 698 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893) Fong Yue Ting v. United States Nos. 1345, 1346, 1347 Argued May 10, 1893 Decided May 15, 1893 149 U.S. 698 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus The right to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, absolutely or upon certain conditions, in war or in peace, is an inherent and inalienable right of every sovereign nation. In the United States, the power to exclude or to expel aliens is vested in the political departments of the National Government, and is to be regulated by treaty or by act of Congress, and to be executed by the executive authority according to the regulations so established, except so far as the Judicial Department is authorized by treaty or by statute, or is required by the Constitution, to intervene. The power of Congress to expel, like the power to exclude, ali...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Garrison v. Louisiana - 379 U.S. 64 (1964) U.S. Supreme Court Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964) Garrison v. Louisiana No. 4 Argued April 22,1964 Restored to the calendar for reargument June 22, 1964 Reargued October 19, 1964 Decided November 23, 1964 379 U.S. 64 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus Appellant, a District Attorney in Louisiana, during a dispute with certain state court judges of his parish, accused them at a press conference of laziness and inefficiency and of hampering his efforts to enforce the vice laws. A state court convicted him of violating the Louisiana Criminal Defamation Statute, which, in the context of criticism of official conduct, includes punishment for true statements made with "actual malice" in the sense of ill-will, as well as false statements if made with ill-will or without reasonable belief that they were true. The state supreme court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute did not unconstitutionally abr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. These appeals are directed against judgments dated 28.2.2008 and 4.2.2010 of the Full Bench and the Division Bench respectively of the Madras High Court whereby the appellant’s challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge was negatived and his dismissal from service was upheld.2. The appellant joined service under the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’) as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 1.9.1973. While he was posted in ‘P’ Section of the Commission, which deals with the appointment of Invigilators and Chief Invigilators for various examinations, the Commission issued Notification dated 8.8.1989 for holding competitive examination for direct recruitment of Assistant Surgeons. The main written examination was conducted on 17.2.1990 and 18.2.1990. Shri Syed Abdul Kareem, who was appointed as Chief Invigilator at Bharathiar Government Arts College for Women, North Madras, examination centre, met the Superintende...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1711; (1963)ILLJ671SC; [1963]1SCR416
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court upon a certificate granted by it under Article 133(1)(a) of the constitution declaring that the case is fit for appeal to this Court. 2. The appellant was directly recruited as Tehsildar in the year 1936. According to him his work was found to be extremely satisfactory and for this reason he was appointed as an Extra Assistant Commissioner on probation in the year 1945. His appointment amounted to promotion to the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch) and was made by selection through the Punjab Public Services Commission. The notification pertaining to the appellant's promotion appears in the Gazette of June 5, 1949, and dates from May 31, 1945. 3. According to the appellant, throughout his career as a public servant he had been very honest, hard-working and impartial and was extremely popular with all committee such as Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. He also claims to have 'helped the pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC66; 1956CriLJ156; [1955]2SCR955
Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal with certificate under article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution arises out of an application under section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act (XXXII of 1952) and section 8 of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act (XXXVII of 1850) read with article 227 of the Constitution filed by the respondent against the appellant in the High Court of Judicature of Patna and raises an important question as to whether the Commissioner appointed under Act XXXVII of 1850 is a Court. 2. The respondent is a Member of the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch). The State Government received reports to the effect that the respondent had been guilty of serious misconduct and corrupt practices in the discharge of his official duties while employed as Sub-Divisional Officer at Aurangabad and they accordingly decided that an inquiry into the truth of the various charges against him should be made under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (Act XXXVII of 1850, hereinafte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1074; JT1993(6)SC1; (1994)ILLJ162SC; 1993(3)SCALE952; (1993)4SCC727; [1993]Supp2SCR576; 1993(3)SLJ193(SC)
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. This group of matters is at the instance of various parties, viz., Union of India, Public Sector Corporations, Public Sector banks, State Governments and two private parties. By an order dated 5th August, 1991 in Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India v. B.Karunakar : (1992)1SCC709 , a three Judge Bench of this Court referred that matter to the Chief Justice for being placed before a Larger Bench, for the Bench found a conflict in the two decisions of this Court, viz., Kailash Chander Asthana etc. etc. v. State of U.P. and Ors. etc. etc. : (1988)IILLJ219SC , and Union of India and Ors. etc. etc. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan : (1991)ILLJ29SC both delivered by the Benches of three learned Judges. Civil Appeal No. 3056 of 1991 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12103 of 1991 along with the other matters in which the same question of law is in issue, has therefore, been referred to this Bench.2. The basis question of law which arises in these matters is whether the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC295; 1964CriLJ224; [1964]4SCR204
Das Gupta, J. 1. The appellant, R. P. Kapur, was appointed to the Indian Civil Servicealmost 25 years ago. He continued in the service after the independence ofIndia and since 1948 has been serving the Government of Punjab. On the 18thJuly 1959, when the appellant was serving as Commissioner, Ambala Division, hewas placed under suspension. A few months before this, two criminal cases hadbeen instituted against him. The first of these was instituted on December 10,1958, by one M. L. Sethi against Kapur and his mother-in-law, Kaushalya Devi,on allegations of offences under section 420 and section 120B of the IndianPenal Code. The second was instituted on the complaint of one M. L. Dhingra onallegations of offences under section 55(2) of the Prevention of CorruptionAct, 1947 and sub-section 167, 168, 406, 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code.This complaint was submitted by Dhingra to Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon, theChief Minister of Punjab, on February 27, 1959. Action on this case was tak...
Tag this Judgment!