Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 191 (0.97 seconds)
Documents citing The Deputy Director Of Collegiate ... vs S. Nagoor Meera on 24 February, 1995

Head Constable Sukhbir Singh vs The Commissioner Of Police on 26 November, 2012

10. The above said judgment was challenged by the respondents before Honble High Court of Delhi by filing Writ Petition No. 1044/2008 wherein the specific issue considered was whether notwithstanding the proviso to Rule 11 (1) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, a police officer can be dismissed or removed from service during the pendency of a first appeal against an order of conviction and sentence. The Honble High Court referred to the Circular dated 9.12.2005 as also the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras Vs. S. Nagoor Meera (supra) and observed as follows:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tarun Vikram vs Commissioner Of Police on 21 January, 2013

In a Civil Appeal No.2992 of 1995 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.684 of 1995)  Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras Vs. S. Nagoor Meera, the Honble Supreme Court has observed that what is relevant for clause (a) of second proviso to Article 311(2) is the conduct which has led to the conviction on a criminal charge. The apex Court has observed that even if an Appellate Court suspended the order there can be no question of suspending the conduct. It has categorically stated that passing such orders under Article 311(2) (a) are not barred merely because the sentence has been suspended by the Appellate Court and/or the said Government servant/accused has been released on bail.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sher Singh vs Govt. Of India Of Delhi on 8 April, 2011

10. The above said judgment was challenged by the respondents before Honble High Court of Delhi by filing Writ Petition No. 1044/2008 wherein the specific issue considered was whether notwithstanding the proviso to Rule 11 (1) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, a police officer can be dismissed or removed from service during the pendency of a first appeal against an order of conviction and sentence. The Honble High Court referred to the Circular dated 9.12.2005 as also the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras Vs. S. Nagoor Meera (supra) and observed as follows:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.S.Hari Shankar vs The General Manager on 4 July, 2008

18. (a) In the decision reported in (1995) 3 SCC 377 (Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Admn) v. S.Nagoor Meera) the Supreme Court considered the effect of suspension of sentence and in paragraphs 7 and 8 held thus, "7. This clause, it is relevant to notice, speaks of conduct which has led his conviction on a criminal charge. It does not speak of sentence or punishment awarded. Merely because the sentence is suspended and/or the accused is released on bail, the conviction does not cease to be operative. Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers the appellate court to order that pending the appeal the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond. Section 389(1), it may be noted, speaks of suspending the execution of the sentence or order, it does not expressly speak of suspension of conviction.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - N N Vasanthakumar - Full Document

Mukut Dhari Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 1 September, 2020

In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code which is a serious offence as also offence involving moral turpitude as such, the petitioner cannot claim the benefits of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and further according to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration) Madras v S Nagoor Meera (Supra), until the said conviction of the petitioner is set aside by the Appellate Court or Higher Court may not be advisable to retain such person in service and if the 10 petitioner succeeds in appeal on other proceedings the matter can always be reviewed in such a manner that the petitioner suffers no prejudice. In view of the aforesaid legal position, issue no.(ii) is also decided against the petitioner as the petitioner cannot claim benefits of Article 311(2) in view of Clause-(a) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - D Roshan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next