Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing Vidya Prakash vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 February, 1988

Ali Jabed vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 February, 2005

In the case in Vidya Prakash v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1988 SC 705, the question raised before the Apex Court was in Order to awarding four red ink entries and if a person is absent without leave, whether the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate or not. In the aforesaid case the Supreme Court has held that if a person is punished for an offence of absence from duty on four occasions and there was red ink entry, then the punishment awarded by the Court Martial for dismissal of service cannot be said to disproportionate to the charge levelled against the person concerned.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Dinesh Prasad on 30 October, 2012

20. The decision of this Court in Vidya Parkash v. Union of India and Ors[1]. squarely applies to the present situation. Unfortunately, the judgment in Vidya Parkash1 was not brought to the notice of the Single Judge and the Division Bench. The facts in Vidya Parkash1 were these: the appellant was posted as Jawan in Panagarh. He left Panagarh with his wife and children for Kanpur without taking any leave. According to Vidya Parkash, he became unwell and he was under treatment of a doctor. When he reported to Panagarh unit with his fitness certificate, he was served with a charge sheet wherein it was ordered by Major P.S. Mahant that he would be tried by summary court-martial. The summary court- martial which was presided over by Major P.S. Mahant ordered his dismissal from service. Vidya Parkash challenged that order in a writ petition before Delhi High Court. Inter alia, a plea was set up that the commanding officer Major P.S. Mahant was not legally competent to preside over a summary court-martial. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition. It was held that no objection was taken as to the competence of Major P.S. Mahant to act as a Judge in summary court-martial. It was from the order of the Delhi High Court that the matter reached this Court. This Court considered Sections 108 and 116 of the Army Act, Rule 39(2) of the Army Rules and held that the summary court martial held by the commanding officer Major P.S. Mahant was in accordance with the provisions of Section 116 of the Army Act. This Court further observed :
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 13 - R M Lodha - Full Document

No.143740509K Hav/Clk Surinder Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 19 November, 2012

petitioner was properly attached to 103 A.D. Regiment. CO 103 A.D. Regiment, thus, was the proper CO of the petitioner and rightly held the trial of the petitioner by SCM. A trial by CO of Corps or detachment or department to which a person belongs can competently be held by CO of that Corps, detachment or department as per Section 116 of the Army Act. (See Vidya Prakash Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 705). In this regard, reference can be made to a circular issued by Army Headquarters in the year 1985, which though was not referred to by any of the parties. This Court being aware of the same, has taken note of the same. Relevant portion of this circular is as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - R Singh - Full Document

No. 2676699-F Ex Gdr Balbir Singh Son Of ... vs Chief Of The Army Staff Through Oic Legal ... on 4 May, 2005

The Court having satisfied itself that the accused understands the charges and the effect of his plea of "Guilty", accepts and records the same. After perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition, it is clear that the provisions of Rule 115 (2) has been complied with. It is well settled that if a person has pleaded "Guilty" and the effect of pleading "Guilty" has been explained, the procedure in case of pleading "Guilty"' is different and in the case of not pleading "Guilty" is also different as provided under (sic) 116 of the Army Rules. Regarding the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, that the punishment, which has been awarded is disproportionate to the charge cannot be accepted in view of the Apex Court judgment in A.I.R. 1988, Supreme Court, page 705, Vidya Prakash v. Union of India and Ors. In the aforesaid case the Apex Court has taken a view that if an army soldier absenting himself from duty without taking any leave from lines as required under the Act and was previously punished for the same offence of absence from duty on four occasions the infliction of punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charge of tainted with illegality. The relevant portion in Para 14 is being quoted below-
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

The Union Of India vs Shri. Vijay Kumar on 5 August, 2015

In Vidya Prakash's case (Supra), the Apex Court clearly held that dismissed from service for unauthorized absence from duty for the fifth times is not illegal. In the present case, the respondent/writ petitioner had incurred 4 Page 18 of 19 (four) red entries for unauthorized absence and also the respondent/writ petitioner despite of counseling in writing and orally failed to show any improvement and continued with his habit of misconducts. This being the situation, there is absolutely no reason for coming to our finding that the quantum of punishment imposed to the respondent/writ petitioner for discharging from service by issuing the impugned discharge order dated 14.08.2002 is shockingly disproportionate and also decision of the appellants/respondents suffers from procedural impropriety.
Meghalaya High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next