Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC364; [1964(9)FLR161]; (1964)ILLJ38SC; (1964)66PLR305; [1964]4SCR718
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. Two short question of law arise for our decision in the present appeal. The first question is whether Government is competent to differ from the findings of fact recorded by the enquiry officer who has been entrusted with the work of holding a departmental enquiry against a delinquent government servant under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules; and the other question is whether the High Court in dealing with a writ petition field by a Government Officer who has been dismissed from Government service is entitled to hold that the conclusion reached by the Government in regard to his misconduct is not supported by any evidence at all. As our judgment will show, we are inclined to answer both the questions in the affirmative. Thus, the appellant, the Union of Union of India (UOI), succeeds on the first point, but fails on the second. At the hearing of this appeal, the learned Attorney-General told us that the appellant was fightin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC179; (1965)IILLJ560SC; [1964]4SCR680
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petition No. 87 of 1963. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights. R. Gopalakrishnan, for the petitioner. R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. N. Sachthey, for the Respondents. August 29, 1963. The Judgment of S. K. Das, Acting. C.J., Raghubar Dayal, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and J. R. Mudholkar, JJ. was delivered by Mudholkar, J., K. Subba Rao J., delivered a dissenting opinion. MUDHOLKAR J.-The petitioner, who is a graduate, is an Assistant in Grade IV of the Central Secretariat Service, having been recruited therein in the year 1956. He became permanent on January 1, 1958. The next post which' the petitioner can expect to get is that of Section Officer (Assistant Superintendent) in the same service. Recruitment to the post of Section Officer is made in the following manner : (i) 40% by direct recruitment from those who obtained lower ranks in the I.A.S. etc., examination ; (ii)30% by promotion from Grade IV to Grade III on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC83; [1964]4SCR673
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the Judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1597 of 1960 decided on February 15, 1961. The appellants are eight in number and the have been convicted under s. 325 read with s. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. They have also been convicted variously under Sections 147 & 148, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to smaller terms of imprisonment which need not be mentioned as those sentences are made to run concurrently with the above sentence. They were originally charged under s. 302 read with s. 149, Indian Penal Code for the murder of one Tikam on January 24, 1960 at about noon in village Nandgaon Police Station Barsana District Mathura. The session Judge, Mathura, did not think that a case of murder was made out and convicted them of the lesser offence. Their appeal to the High Court was dismissed and the conviction and sentences were maintained. 2. There wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC476; 2008(228)ELT8(SC); [1964]4SCR708
Das Gupta, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against a conviction and sentenced under s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act 1878. The appellant was acquitted by the trial court, but on appeal by the State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant under s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The prosecution case was that on receipt of some information that gold smuggled from Pakistan was being carried, Lal Singh, Sub-Inspector of the Check-post of Barmer, followed the appellant into a railway train at Luni railway station, and in the running train between the stations of Kerala and Pali, searched appellant's person and found that he was carrying 286 tolas of gold in a pouli under his trousers. In the reasonable belief that these were smuggled goods, Lal Singh seized the gold. The gold that was seized consisted of six blocks bearing marks '999', N. M. Rothschild & Sons, 22 bars b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1305; [1964]4SCR647
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 392 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 13, 1962, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench at Delhi) in Civil Revision No. 427-D of 1957. Bishan Narain, O. C. Mathur, Ravinder Narain and J.B.Dadachanji for the appellants. A.V. Viswanatha Sastri and K. K. Jain, for respondent 1. S. N. Andley, for respondent No. 2. August 29, 1963. The judgment of S. K. Das, Acting C.J. and M. Hidayatullah, J. was delivered by S.K. Das Acting C.J. Sarkar J. delivered a dessenting opinion. S. K. DAS, Acting Chief Justice.--With much regret, we have come to a conclusion different from that of our learned brother Sarkar, J. as respects the true scope and effect of S. 57 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Control Act of 1958. The Control Act of 1958 repeals the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, hereinafter called the Control Act of 1952, in so far as that Act was applicable to the Uni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC464; 1964CriLJ310; [1964]4SCR630
Das Gupta, J. 1. Sajjan Singh, son of Chanda Singh, jointed the service of the Punjab Government in January 1922 as an Overseer in the Irrigation Department. He continued as Overseer till July 1944 when he became a Sub-divisional Officer in the Department. From the date till May 1947 he worked as Sub-Divisional Officer in that part of Punjab which has now gone to West Pakistan. From November 30, 1947 to September 26, 1962 he was employed as Sub-Divisional Officer of Drauli Sub-Division of the Nangal Circle, except for a short break from November 8, 1950 to April 3, 1951, when he was on leave. The work of excavation for the Nangal Project within the Drauli Sub-Division was carried out by several contractors, including Ramdas Chhankanda Ram and M/s. Ramdas Jagdish Ram. On December 7, 1952, the General Manager, Bhakra Dam, made a complaint in writing to the Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, alleging that Sajjan Singh and some other officials subordinate to him had by illegal and corru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC423; (1964)ILLJ395SC; [1964]4SCR598
S.K. Das, Acting Chief Justice. 1. This is an appeal by special leave. The appellant is a member of the Indian Police Service. He joined that service on October 3, 1952 as a result of a competitive examination held in 1951, and was posted in the State of Punjab. He was confirmed on November 30, 1953. The time-scales of pay admissible to a member of the Indian Police Service consist of the junior scale, the senior scale and selection grade; see r. 3 of the Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules, 1954. In pursuance of sub-rule (1) of r. 4 of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, the Central Government made regulation known as the Indian Police Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955. Under these regulations, Punjab has 57 senior posts in the Indian Police Service out of which some have to be filled by promotion in accordance with r. 9 of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment), Rules, 1954. To this aspect of the case we shall advert later. The number of junior posts is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1357; (1964)66BOMLR250; [1964]4SCR589
Das Gupta, J. 1. On June 11, 1961 at 5 p.m. the road in front of Temple of Shri Maruti in the village of Chinchpur of Taluk Sholapur was the scene of a terrible tragedy. Three persons - Revansidappa, and his two maternal uncles, Yellappa and Maruti were done to death there in a most gruesome manner. Revansidappa's neck was severed from the body, except for a piece of skin and one of his legs was chopped off. The spinal cord and vertebra of Yellappa were cut off. The jaw, vertebra, tongue and a major part of the neck of Maruti were cut off. 2. The first information that reached the police station of this tragedy was by a letter of the village Police Patel written on the same day and addressed to the Police Sub-Inspector of Mandrup. It merely stated that three murders had taken place in course of riot and maramari at 5 p.m. in the evening and mentioning the names of the men who had been murdered. This letter reached the police station at 2. 30 a.m. Head Constable Bansode who was in charg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC491; [1964]4SCR575
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The petition from which these appeals by special leave arise was filed by the respondent, C. D. Govinda Rao, in the Mysore High Court under art. 226 of the Constitution. By that petition, he prayed that a writ of quo warranto be issued, calling upon Anniah Gowda to show cause as to under what authority he was holding the post of a Research Reader in English in the Central College, Bangalore. He also prayed for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction calling upon the University of Mysore to appoint him. Research Reader in the scale of Rs. 500-25-800. His case was that the appointment of Anniah Gowda to the post of Research Reader was illegal in the face of the prescribed qualifications and that he was qualified to be appointed to that post. That is why he wanted the appointment of Anniah Gowda to be quashed, and he asked for a writ, directing the University to appoint him in that post. To his petition, he impleaded the University of Mysore by its ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC275; [1964]4SCR549
Hidayatullah, J.1. This appeal by special leave by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 raises animportant question under the Muhammadan Law, which may be stated thus : 'Is a gift by a husband to his minor wife andaccepted on her behalf by her mother valid ?' 2. It has been held by the High Court and the courts below that inMuhammadan Law such a gift is invalid. The facts leading up to this questionmay now be stated. 3. One Mammotty was married to Seinaba and he made a gift of his propertiesincluding immovable property to Seinaba on April 7, 1944 by a registered deed.Mammotty died on May 3, 1946 without an issue. Seinaba also died soonafterwards on February 25, 1947, without leaving an issue. At this time of thegift Seinaba was 15 years 9 months old. It appears that Mammotty was ill for along time and was in hospital and he was discharged uncurred a month before theexecution of the gift deed and remained in his mother-in-law's houseafterwards. There are conflicting versions about the nature of the d...
Tag this Judgment!