Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.09 seconds)
Documents citing Superintendent Of Police, Ludhiana & ... vs Dwarka Das Etc on 28 November, 1978

Geetali Doley vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 18 March, 2020

24. Mr. S.K. Talukdar echoes the arguments already placed and adds that the order of discharge is stigmatic in nature and essentially an order of dismissal/removal from service, although it prima facie appears to be innocuous. It is clearly relatable and connected to alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner arising out of Dibrugarh Police Case No.939/2016. It is, therefore, submitted that the alleged misconduct having formed the foundation, as such, the impugned action could not have been resorted to without an inquiry as contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Further, the guilt of the petitioners not having been established by the prosecution in any criminal court of law, the presumption of innocence is attached to them. Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.3 on 02.04.2019 and the subsequent additional affidavit filed by the same respondent on 25.07.2019, it is contended that both affidavits demonstrates different stand of the respondent. Although much has been stated by the respondents that the order of discharge is in conformity with law and the same is in the domain of 'discharge simpliciter' without any stigma attached to it and that the materials appearing from the preliminary inquiry, including the investigation carried out by the Dibrugarh Police, forms the motive of discharge and not the foundation thereof, it is submitted that the discretion so exercised in invoking the relevant provisions under the rules is, however, subject to the rule of law. Submission made is that the duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of power to decide and determine, if the act of the State operates to the prejudice of a person. Entitlement to a hearing need not be shown or super-added if adjudication of a matter involves civil consequences. Further, that the concept of rule of law would lose its meaning if the State instrumentalities are not made accountable with the duty of discharging their functions in a Page No.# 69/96 fair and just manner. After all, the requirement of acting judicially in essence is nothing but a requirement to act justly and fairly and not arbitrarily or capriciously.
Gauhati High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 2 - M Bhuyan - Full Document

State Of Haryana & Others vs Tejbir Singh on 22 March, 2022

In fact, this view is in consonance with the decision of this Court rendered in The Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and another vs. Dwarka Das 1979 (1) SLR 299, where it was observed that if Rules 12.21(3) and 12.21 are read together, it will appear that the maximum period of probation in the case of a police officer of the rank of constable is three years, for the Superintendent of Police concerned has the power to discharge him within that period. It was also held that the power of discharge cannot be exercised under Rule 12.21 after the expiry of the period of three years and consequentially if it is proposed to deal with an inefficient police officer after the expiry of that period, it is necessary to do so in accordance with Chapter XVI of the Rules, which makes provisions for the imposition of various punishments including dismissal from the police force. No simple order of discharge under Rule 12.21 can be passed after the expiry of the period of three years for that will attract Article 311 of the Constitution.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Pawan Kumar vs State Of Hy And Ors on 17 May, 2023

In fact, this view is in consonance with the decision of this Court rendered in The Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and another vs. Dwarka Das 1979 (1) SLR 299, where it was observed that if Rules 12.21(3) and 12.21 are read together, it will appear that the maximum period of probation in the case of a police officer of the rank of constable is three years, for the Superintendent of Police concerned has the power to discharge him within that period. It was also held that the power of discharge cannot be exercised under Rule 12.21 after the expiry of the period of three years and consequentially if it is proposed to deal with an inefficient police officer after the expiry of that period, it is necessary to do so in accordance with Chapter XVI of the Rules, which makes provisions for the imposition of various punishments including dismissal from the police force. No simple order of discharge under Rule 12.21 can be passed after the expiry of the period of three years for that will attract Article 311 of the Constitution.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

Bhikamsingh vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 28 April, 1982

14. Shri Palshikar and Sri Oka, the learned counsels for the petitioner, had invited our attention to two Supreme Court decisions in support of their propositions. They are the case of State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, and the case of The Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and others v. Dwarka Das, reported in 1979 (1) Services Law Reporter 299. In both these cases the relevant rules forbid extension of period of probation beyond three years. It is in the background of this aspect that a finding was recorded that the probationary service repined automatically into permanent service only as a result of the expiry of the period.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhikamsingh S/O Chatarsingh Sapkal And ... vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 28 April, 1980

14. Shri Palshikar and Shri Oka, the learned Counsels for the petitioner, had invited our attention to two Supreme Court decisions in support of their propositions. They are the case of State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, and the case of The Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and others v. Dwarka Das, reported in 1979(1) Services Law Reporter 299. In both these cases the relevant rules forbid extension of period of probation beyond three years. It is in the background of this aspect that a finding was recorded that the probationary service ripened automatically into permanent service only as a result of the expiry of the period.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Others vs Sukhwinder Singh on 14 July, 2005

In fact, this view is in consonance with the decision of this Court rendered in The Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and another vs. Dwarka Das 1979 (1) SLR 299, where it was observed that if Rules 12.21(3) and 12.21 are read together, it will appear that the maximum period of probation in the case of a police officer of the rank of constable is three years, for the Superintendent of Police concerned has the power to discharge him within that period. It was also held that the power of discharge cannot be exercised under Rule 12.21 after the expiry of the period of three years and consequentially if it is proposed to deal with an inefficient police officer after the expiry of that period, it is necessary to do so in accordance with Chapter XVI of the Rules, which makes provisions for the imposition of various punishments including dismissal from the police force. No simple order of discharge under Rule 12.21 can be passed after the expiry of the period of three years for that will attract Article 311 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 153 - G P Mathur - Full Document

The Punjab State Through The Collector vs Harjinder Singh on 21 October, 2009

In fact, this view is in consonance with the decision of this Court R.S.A. No. 874 of 1987 4 rendered in Supdt. of Police v. Dwarka Das, (1979) 3 SCC 789 where it was observed that if Rules 12.21(3) and 12.21 are read together, it will appear that the maximum period of probation in the case of a police officer of the rank of constable is three years, for the Superintendent of Police concerned has the power to discharge him within that period. It was also held that the power of discharge cannot be exercised under Rule 12.21 after the expiry of the period of three years and consequentially if it is proposed to deal with an inefficient police officer after the expiry of that period, it is necessary to do so in accordance with Chapter XVI of the Rules, which makes provisions for the imposition of various punishments including dismissal from the police force. No simple order of discharge under Rule 12.21 can be passed after the expiry of the period of three years for that will attract Article 311 of the Constitution."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Krishan Kumar vs Dy. Inspector General on 1 February, 2011

In fact, this view is in consonance with the decision of this Court rendered in The Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and another v. Dwarka Das, 1979(1) SLR 299, where it was observed that if Rules 12.21(3) and 12.21 are read together, it will appear that the maximum period of probation in the case of a police officer of the rank of constable is three years, for the Superintendent of Police concerned has the power to discharge him within that period. It was also held that the power of discharge cannot be exercised under Rule 12.21 after the expiry of the period of three years and consequentially if it is proposed to deal with an inefficient police officer after the expiry of that period, it is necessary to do so in accordance with Chapter XVI of the Rules, which makes provisions for the imposition of various punishments including dismissal from the police force. No simple order of discharge under Rule 12.21 can be passed after the expiry of the period of three years for that will attract Article 311 of the Constitution.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - K S Ahluwalia - Full Document
1   2 Next