Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)47; (1997)IILLJ1067SC; 1996(5)SCALE697; (1996)10SCC55; [1996]Supp3SCR801
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. We requested Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel to assist the appellant. We have heard the arguments for the State and also Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan. The Tribunal in the impugned order, while setting aside the order of compulsory retirement from service, remitted the matter to the Government to conduct the enquiry afresh alter giving, opportunity to the appellant and based thereon to pass appropriate orders for fixation of the pension etc. It is not in dispute that the appellant has already retired from service. It is also not in dispute that the advances drawn for construction of the house, allotment of the house in the name of his wife by Housing Board has already been redone. Consequently, there is no detriment caused to the State. Since he had already retired from service, we think, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a case for conducting a fresh enquiry as directed by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC29; 1996(5)SCALE698; (1996)10SCC162; [1996]Supp3SCR792
1. Leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court Punjab & Haryana made on March 9, 1994 in R.S. A. No. 114/93. The respondent, a work charged employee, had gone on leave from April 10, 1986. His service was terminated due to his overstay without due sanction of leave. A letter dated September 3, 1986 was communicated to him wherein it was stated that 10 days' time from August 25, 1986 was given to him to report for duty failing which his services 'may be considered to have been terminated from the date of his absence and he may be informed accordingly through a registered letter'. In furtherance thereof, the letter of termination was addressed to the respondent. He filed the suit questioning the said letter.3. Two contentions have been raised by the respondent, viz., that he was a civil servant and that he was entitled to an enquiry before termination of his service and since it was not done, the order was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)321; AIR1996SC2581; JT1996(7)SC189; 1996LabIC2255; 1996(5)SCALE649; (1996)10SCC436; [1996]Supp3SCR794; 1996(3)SLJ116(SC)
1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.4. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Administrative tribunal, Maharashtra made on April 17, 1995 in T.A. No. 670/91. The admitted facts are that all the respondents were appointed prior to 1979 as Assistant Lecturers and were possessed of Post Graduation/Doctorate/Higher educational qualifications. The Government of India had taken decision on October 16, 1973 to appoint such lecturers without reference to the Public Service Commission provided they had put in 4 years of service as Assistant Lecturers and also possessed Post-Graduation qualification The Government of Maharashtra in acceptance of that recommendation had also, adopted the same resolution dated March 23, 1990.5. The Government of India Resolution reads as under :A person already appointed and suitability (sic) of the candidate Associate Lecturer or recruited hereinafter as such would be eligible for being upgraded as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)741; AIR1996SC2512; 1996CriLJ3586; 1996(5)SCALE444; (1996)5SCC495; [1996]Supp3SCR787
1. Special Leave granted.2. The respondent was convicted for an offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the judgment and Order dated May 28, 1987. After he had undergone a little more than 8 Years of sentence he filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Seeking prema(sic) release. The High Court by the impugned order dated January 18.1986 considered the case on its merits and allowed the petition directing the release of the respondent forthwith. The State is aggrieved of the order dated January 18, 1986, hence this appeal.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. In our opinion the direction given by the High Court was not at all appropriate or permissible in law. The mandate of Section 433 Cr.P.C. enables the Government in an appropriate case to commute the sentence of a convict and to prematurely order his release before expiry of the sentence as imposed by the courts. Clause (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)330; [1996(74)FLR2346]; JT1996(7)SC353; 1996(5)SCALE785; (1996)10SCC166; [1996]Supp3SCR771; 1996(3)SLJ97(SC); 1996(2)LC561(SC); (1997)1UPLBEC379
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides and also respondent No. 8 in person.3. The undisputed facts are that while the appellants were working as Head Clerks and respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Gulzari Ram and Ram Lal were working as Accountants, the scale of pay of the Head Clerks was 160-400 while that of the Accountants was 160-450. Later by executive order dated November 11, 1976 the Government had created 10 temporary posts of Assistants and upgraded them to the scale of Rs. 225-500 and some senior candidates came 10 be appointed to those posts. Subsequently, statutory rules under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution came to be made, increasing the number of posts and scale of pay of all the Head Clerks, Assistants, Stenographers etc. to Rs. 225-500, By proceedings of the Government dated November 2, 1979 with effect from January 1, 1978 promotions of Accountants and Head Clerks were fused together, Pay of Assistants, Head Assistants etc. was revised to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC9; JT1997(10)SC484; 1996LabIC2748; [1996]Supp3SCR767; 1997(1)SLJ47(SC)
A.S. Anand, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The respondent who was serving as an officer of the Government of Karnataka in the Department of Child Development in Bidar District in the year 1982-83 faced disciplinary inquiry on charges of certain irregularities in the release of Government funds. The Inquiry Officer, who conducted the inquiry found the respondent guilty of the charges framed against him. The disciplinary authority accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer and by its order dated 10th April, 1990 imposed penalty of reduction in rank upon the respondent. The respondent approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and challenged the order of the disciplinary authority. On 28th August, 1990 the Tribunal dismissed the application on merits holding the order of the disciplinary authority to be valid. After dismissal of the application, the respondent filed a review application before the Tribunal wherein he contended that the ground urged by him regarding non-furnishing of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)195; AIR1997SC27; 1996LabIC2576; 1996(5)SCALE693; (1996)10SCC172; [1996]Supp3SCR763; 1997(1)SLJ14(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. This is rather an unfortunate case. The appellant joined his service as an Engineering Supervisor in the year 1946. He served the department in various capacities and superannuated on 31st July 1984 when he was serving as an Officiating Assistant Director General (LTP) Department of Telecommunications Government of India, New Delhi. An order for payment of pension was issued on 24.8.1984 and the pension amount was paid to him on 11.10.1984. The Union of India which was under a statutory obligation to settle and decide his retrial benefits and other claims by 31st July, 1984 failed to discharge those statutory obligations and his claims remained, unsettled. The appellant had to undergo tremendous hardship as his claim for encashment of earned leave, increment arrears, special pay due, LTC etc. remained unsettled and his numerous representations to the department also evoked no response. The appellant thereafter served a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. claiming his due...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)153; AIR1996SC2578; 1996(5)SCALE653; (1996)10SCC320; [1996]Supp3SCR775
1. Leave granted. Though notice was served on the respondents-the first and the fourth respondents, the Ist respondent is not appearing either in person or through counsel; equally, 4th respondent through counsel. We have heard the counsel for the appellant as well as for the State.2. The undisputed facts are that the appellant-Society consists of labourers and Scheduled Caste person belonging to the village Khardosan in Deesa Taluka of Banaskantha District of Gujarat State. The appellant-society had requested the Gram Panchayat to recommend to the District Collector for assignment of 300 acres of gaucher land (waste land) vested in the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of cultivation and augmentation of economic empowerment of the members of the appellant-Society. The Gram Panchayat had unanimously resolved and requested the Collector to resume the land and assign it to the appellant. The District Collector in response thereto had resumed the land and assigned the same to the appellant. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)IILLJ921SC; 1996(5)SCALE673; (1996)10SCC505
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. The respondent who was serving as an officer of the Government of Karnataka in the Department of Child Development in Bid District in the year 1982-83 faced disciplinary inquiry on charges of certain irregularities in the release of Government funds. The Inquiry Officer, who conducted the inquiry found the respondent guilty of the charges framed against him. The disciplinary authority accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer and by its order dated 10th April, 1990 imposed penalty of reduction in rank upon the respondent. The respondent approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and challenged the order of the disciplinary authority. On 28th August, 1990 the Tribunal dismissed the application on merits holding the order of the disciplinary authority to be valid. After dismissal of the application, the respondent filed a review application before the Tribunal wherein he contended that the ground urged by him regarding non-furnishing of the inquiry...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)404; AIR1996SC2481; 1996CriLJ3274; JT1996(6)SC529; 1996(5)SCALE233; (1996)5SCC216; [1996]Supp3SCR677
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J. 1. In a clash of competing interests in constitutional contours, this case calls to strike a balance between the freedom of speech and expression, a salutary right in a liberal democratic society and paramount countervailing duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. The petitioner had initiated public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution to direct Sri P.V. Narasimha Rao, the President of India National Congress and the former Prime Minister of the country to pay a sum of Rs. 8.29 Lakhs and odd said to be due to the Union of India for use of Indian Air Force aircraft or helicopters from October 1, 1993 to November 30, 1993. When Writ Petition No. 432/95 was posted for hearing on July 17, 1995 before the learned Chief Justice of India and brother Justice S.C. Sen the Solicitor General for India, Shri Dipankar P. Gupta was sent for and the Court directed him to have the averments verified to be correct and directed the p...
Tag this Judgment!