Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.67 seconds)

Smt. Sita Gati Magar vs State Of U.P. on 4 May, 2018

In the matter of Gurbax Singh (supra), the Supreme Court had observed that there was non-compliance of section 55 of the Act because the I.O. Did not say that muddamal parcels were sealed by the officer-in-charge. The Supreme Court also found that in absence of the evidence relating to proper sealing of the articles and its safe custody,it would not be fair to convict the accused.
Allahabad High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 1 - S Kant - Full Document

650 Ducruz Compound vs Union Of India on 12 February, 2009

2. It is strenuously argued by the counsel for the applicant that he could not have been transferred from RMS to Post Office as nature of duties is absolutely different. Even otherwise, the order is mala fide as it is based on the complaint given by a person, who was himself unauthorized person because he could not have travelled in the mail van. Since transfer is ordered on account of misconduct, it is punitive in nature as such it could not have ordered without verifying the facts. In any case, the complaint itself is lodged after a delay of one year, therefore, it could not have been acted upon. The order is without jurisdiction because it could not have been issued without taking prior approval from the Chief Post Master General (hereinafter referred to as CPMG). Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the complaint dated 26.5.2008 (page 16) to show that the incident was of 1.6.2007 whereas complaint was made almost after one year which shows things have been manipulated. He placed reliance on the judgment of Rajendra Chaubey Vs. U.O.I. & Another reported in 493 Swamys CL Digest 1995/1, Bhagwan Bux Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Others reported in 402 Swamys CL Digest 1996/2 and Labh Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Others reported in 446 Swamys CL Digest 1996/1.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1