Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (2.61 seconds)
Documents citing Somasundaram Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd,. ... vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu ... on 30 January, 1999

The State Of Bihar And Ors vs Manoj Madhup And Anr on 29 January, 2020

The first of the dispute arose in the State of Tamilnadu in the case of N. Somasundaram Vs. State of Madras reported in 1956 Mad 419 wherein N. Somasundaram was appointed in the year 1934 as lower division clerk in the Jail Department in 1934, on 28.4.1947, he was appointed to the category of Reserve Deputy Jailors, the appointment was made by the Inspector General of Prison. On 21.5.1952, the charges were framed against the petitioner by the Superintendent of Jail, he submitted the explanation, enquiry was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Jail, enquiry report was submitted and, ultimately, the Superintendent of Jail, vide order dated 21.10.1952, passed the order of dismissal against the petitioner from service, being aggrieved, the appeal was preferred, the Inspector General of Prison substituted the punishment of removal from service in place of dismissal. The validity of the orders passed by the Superintendent of Jail as well as the Inspector General of Prison Patna High Court L.P.A No.833 of 2014 dt.29-01-2020 27/67 were challenged on two grounds, (i) the punishment of dismissal passed by the Superintendent was in teeth of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India, in such view of the matter, was without jurisdiction, as was claimed, the petitioner of that case was appointed by the Inspector General of Prisons, hence could not have been dismissed or removed from service by the Superintendent as he had not appointed the petitioner rather he was appointed by Inspector General of Prison (ii) the principles of natural justice was not observed. The Superintendent of Jail was competent who could have appointed N. Somasundaram to the category of Deputy Jailors but, the appointment letter was, in fact, issued by the Inspector General of Prisons, it was an equally undeniable fact that it was the Superintendent of Jail not the Inspector General of Prison who had passed the order of dismissal from service. The issue which was framed by the Hon'ble Court was as to whether the order of dismissal passed by the Superintendent of Jail, the authority of lower rank to the Inspector General of Prisons under the statutory rule, who was competent to appoint N. Somasundaram, was holding the post of Deputy Jailor and was also competent authority to pass the order of dismissal/removal from service, was legal and valid, in view of fact that N. Somasundaram was appointed by Inspector General of Patna High Court L.P.A No.833 of 2014 dt.29-01-2020 28/67 Prison. The Court noted the fact that if, a civil servant is appointed by an authority higher than the one, who, under the rules, is entitled to order the appointment, and, if such an appointment is a valid appointment, then the competence of the lower authority to have ordered the appointment would not confer jurisdiction on that lower authority to pass an order of removal because, the requirements of Article 311(1) forbids such exercise of such assumption of jurisdiction. The authority, who could have appointed but had not appointed, cannot be construed to mean to be the competent authority to pass an order of dismissal/removal when that competent authority did not, in fact, exercise that power of appointment and it was further held that therefore the competence of the authority to order, removal or dismissal will have to be determined with reference to the requirements of Article 311(1) of the Constitution, as the requirement is that the authority, who has passed the order of dismissal or removal, should not be one subordinate in rank to that by which the civil servant, in question, was appointed and the principle that would apply would be that the authority which in fact has passed the order of appointment of the civil servant, in such manner, being the appointing authority under the rule, would be able to pass the order of dismissal, as per Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India Patna High Court L.P.A No.833 of 2014 dt.29-01-2020 29/67 provided the said appointing authority had issued the order of appointment. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:-
Patna High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 3 - S Pandey - Full Document

The Secretary vs The Director Of Town & City Planning on 2 December, 2022

16.The learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.17383 of 2015 dated 25.09.2015 (Pushpalatha Educational Centre, rep.by its Director Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others) has allowed the writ petition which was filed challenging the rejection of the building plan approval for not complying with handing over 10% OSR reservation. In the said case, the building plan approval was sought for by the educational institution on 17.03.2011 and the said application was rejected by the authorities on 07.12.2011. This Court while quashing the order, had directed the educational institution to file an affidavit of undertaking before the authorities that the institution shall keep the Open Space Reservation, open to the sky without any construction and the said Open Space Reservation shall be utilised only as a park and not as a playground. Subject to the above said undertaking, this Court has directed the authorities to consider the application of the petitioner in the light of G.O.Ms.No.161, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3)] Department dated 26.06.2013. Hence, it is clear that G.O.Ms.No.161, dated 26.06.2013 has been made applicable even for the building plan permission application dated 17.03.2011. Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that G.O.Ms.No.161 dated 26.06.2013 does not have any retrospective effect is not legally sustainable. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R Vijayakumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next