Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 83 (1.58 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab vs Dewan Chuni Lal on 16 February, 1970

State vs . Rajan Dewan on 5 May, 2018

(v)     Moreover it is seen that the the place in question was a busy/ place but the IO has failed to join any public witness at the State Vs. Rajan Dewan; FIR No. 409/17; PS MN 8/9 time of seizure of the alleged Board in question.  Mere seizure of a board from public place does not prove that accused had placed the same.   No sincere efforts was made by the IO to join the public witnesses in the investigation of the case.   Non joining of public witness is also fatal for the prosecution case.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Umesh Kumar Goel vs M/O Finance on 12 March, 2025

34. Applicant placed reliance on the judgement of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Dewan Chunni Lal 1970 (1) SCC 479 decided on 16.02.1970, however, the facts and circumstances in that case are not akin to the facts and circumstances in the instant case. Based on the overall service record of the applicant, respondents took a decision to invoke FR 56(j) on the applicant. The applicant was compulsorily retired under FR 56 (j) on 18.03.2016 on the grounds of integrity and competence in public interest. Further, in his prayers, applicant does not allege any malafide / bias on the part of respondents. As 27 OA 3163/2016 Item No.17 /C-1 the applicant will be entitled to all the benefits and acknowledging the principle that when the service of a public servant is no longer useful to the general administration, officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest, the order cannot be termed as punitive. The order dated 18.03.2016 is an order simplicitor and cannot be termed as punitive in nature as it does not cast any aspersion on the applicant not is construed as a short cut method.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Neeraj Singh (Irs) 94068 vs Union Of India Through on 30 May, 2013

In the case of The State of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni Lal a Police Sub-Inspector was allowed to cross efficiency bar although there was charge of inefficiency and dishonesty on the basis of adverse confidential reports of superior officers. The said reports related to period earlier than the year in which he was allowed to cross efficiency bar. It was held that the said report should not be considered in enquiry. The Supreme Court observed at paragraph 14 of the said judgment at page 2089 of the said report as follows:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Satyabrata Chakraborty vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 25 August, 2011

To sum up Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that the advantage of promotion of the delinquent officer would not be an impediment to initiate charge and also for disciplinary proceeding. The ratio of law forthcoming from the facts and law elucidated in the aforesaid decision is applicable in the present case. Therefore, delay in the matter of furnishing the charge memo against the petitioner cannot at all stall the charge and the disciplinary proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited other decisions of law. But facts and circumstances of those decisions are quite distinguishable and, therefore, those cannot be relied upon. The decision of Apex Court in the state of Punjab vs. Dewan Chuni Lal reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 2086 relates to the charge of inefficiency and lack of probity based on adverse report of superior officer. He was denied the right to examine the witnesses.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - A K Banerjee - Full Document

Deep Chand Jain And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 1 November, 1972

30. An argument has been made that the impugned orders have been passed "mechanically" and that the Committee concerned did not go through the record of the petitioners at all because, if it has done so, it would have found that there was no justification for ordering the compulsory retirement of the petitioners. The argument has been supported by a reference to State of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni Lal .
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - P N Shinghal - Full Document

R.K. Gupta vs Coal India Ltd. And Ors. on 3 April, 1992

In the case of The State of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni Lal a Police Sub-Inspector was allowed to cross efficiency bar although there was charge of inefficiency and dishonesty on the basis of adverse confidental reports of superior officers. The said reports related to period earlier than the year in which he was allowed to cross efficiency bar. It was held that the said report should not be considered in enquiry. The Supreme Court observed at paragraph 14 of the said judgment at page 2089 of the said report as follows:-
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Om Prakash vs State on 12 July, 1972

7. Here the Assistant Engineer, State Electricity Board, presented a complaint in the name of the Board to the police station, Rajasthan, in respect of abstraction of electrical energy by the accused. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the course of hearing the revision petition, expressed the view that the Assistant Engineer was not empowered to file such a complaint. The words "person aggrieved", occurring in Section 50 of the Act, are significant. The Assistant Engineer, it appears, was directly incharge of the property of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board located at Sujangarh. A person directly incharge of the property of the Board Will be covered by the description of "person aggrieved". As explained by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Vishwanath v. Emperor , when an officer of a Company discovers theft of electricity and reports the matter to the police and asks it to make investigation, the prosecution must be deemed to have been launched at the instance of the Company and the Magistrate can take cognizance of it. Similar views find place in another Division Bench case of the Bombay High Court, reported as State v. Magan Lal Chunni Lal (supra). In that case it has been held by his Lordship Shah J. (as he then was) that Section 50 does not require that there should be a complaint by any specified person. Where a person acting for and on behalf of Electricity Supply Company lodges a complaint with the police in respect of unlawful abstraction of electrical energy, subsequent prosecution started on a charge-sheet filed by the police, must be regarded as instituted at the instance of the Company. In this case, the Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Sujangarh, obviously acted for and on behalf of the Board and, therefore, the prosecution must be regarded as regularly instituted at the instance of the person aggrieved, as laid down in Section 39 of the Act. In that view of the matter, the prosecution cannot be regarded as having not been properly instituted.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next