Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, ... vs D. Rajaram And Ors. on 28 July, 1959

The Union Of India & Ors vs Smt Sushma Soni & Anr on 2 July, 2013

11. We have noticed from the impugned judgment of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal that it has heavily placed reliance on two judgments, one of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.M. Nanavati's case (supra) and the other of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Deputy Inspector General v. D. Rajaram (supra), to conclude that the order of the Governor dated 3.12.1999 in the present case, has the effect of wiping out the disqualification on account of conviction provided in Rule 19(1) of the Rules of 1965. We have carefully gone through both the judgments to ascertain whether the ratio of law laid down in these cases was rightly applied by the Tribunal or not and whether these judgments have any application to the prayers made and granted to respondent no.1. With respect, we intend to disagree with the view taken by the learned Tribunal.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ram Dayal Mishra vs The Union Of India & Anr on 22 April, 2024

Reliance is placed on the Full Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of The Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Range, Waltair and another Vs. D. Rajaram and others AIR 1960 A.P. 259 and it is submitted that with grant of pardon to a convicted person, he is free both from the punishment imposed on him as also from all penal consequences and such disqualifications, as disentitle him from following his occupation and which are concomitant of the conviction, are removed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document

Smt. Sushma Soni vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 February, 2003

The contention of Mr. Dalip Singh, was that after his Excellency, the Governor passed an order under Article 161 of the Constitution of India granting pardon to Shri Soni, the disqualification stood washed away and Shri Soni's order of removal from service was not sustainable. He canvassed that Shri Soni should be deemed to be in service till the date of his death. He relied on the cases of K.M. Nanavati v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 112, and The Deputy Inspector General of Police North Range, Waltair and Anr. v. D. Rajaram and Ors., AIR 1960 AP 259, in support of his contention.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2026

4. It is further submitted that the learned revisional Court has committed a grave legal error in recording an adverse finding against the non-revisionists by observing that sufficient opportunity had already been granted to them for hearing and yet they remained absent. A bare perusal of the order-sheets of Criminal Revision Case No. 08/2016 titled State of Madhya Pradesh (Deputy Ranger) vs. Rajaram & Others reveals that there is no mention whatsoever of service of notice upon the present petitioners in the said revision proceedings. On the contrary, the order-sheets consistently record that notice be issued to the non-revisionists subject to filing of process by the revisionist. However, from the year 2016 until the final disposal of the revision, no such process was ever filed by the respondents for summoning the petitioners. In the absence of filing of process and consequent service of notice, the question of granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners does not arise. The impugned order, having been passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, is therefore legally unsustainable.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - M R Phadke - Full Document

Ram Dayal Mishra vs The Union Of India & Anr on 18 March, 2024

Learned counsel for the petitioner after relying on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of The Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Range, Waltair and another Vs. D.Rajaram and others, AIR 1960 AP 259, when this Court asked Shri Tiwari as to what will be the impact of pardon granted by Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution of India when petitioner was visited with penalty till rising of the Court and fine of Rs.5,000/- and he had already undergone the penalty of imprisonment till rising of the Court, then whether pardon will be only in respect of imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- or whether the pardon will wipe out the punishment which was already undergone by the petitioner till rising of the Court, Shri Tiwari, prays for 15 days time to do the needful.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document
1