Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.28 seconds)
M.S. Walia vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 2 December, 2010 cites

B. S. Yadav And Others Etc vs State Of Haryana And Others Etc on 5 November, 1980

"One of the conclusions rightly reached by the High Court is that the appointing authority for a directly recruited District Munsiff is the Governor. Both these persons were directly recruited as District Munsiffs and it was this substantive rank held by them when they were removed from service. The High Court has further correctly concluded that the major penalty of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank can be imposed on a directly appointed District Munsiff only on the recommendation of the High Court which is binding on the Governor. The result is that the order of removal from service of a person holding the substantive rank of District Munsiff has to be made only by the Governor, even though the Governor must act in accordance with the recommendation of the High Court which is binding on the Governor. This the true import of Article 235 of the Constitution which vests the control over the District Courts and the courts subordinate thereto in the High Court. This is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer the decisions in B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana (1981) 1 SCR 1024: (AIR 1881 SC 561) and Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh v. L.V.A. Dixitulu (1979) SC 193)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 452 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Chief Justice Of A.P. & Anr vs L.V.A. Dikshitulu & Ors on 12 September, 1978

"One of the conclusions rightly reached by the High Court is that the appointing authority for a directly recruited District Munsiff is the Governor. Both these persons were directly recruited as District Munsiffs and it was this substantive rank held by them when they were removed from service. The High Court has further correctly concluded that the major penalty of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank can be imposed on a directly appointed District Munsiff only on the recommendation of the High Court which is binding on the Governor. The result is that the order of removal from service of a person holding the substantive rank of District Munsiff has to be made only by the Governor, even though the Governor must act in accordance with the recommendation of the High Court which is binding on the Governor. This the true import of Article 235 of the Constitution which vests the control over the District Courts and the courts subordinate thereto in the High Court. This is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer the decisions in B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana (1981) 1 SCR 1024: (AIR 1881 SC 561) and Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh v. L.V.A. Dixitulu (1979) SC 193)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 767 - Full Document

Shyam Lal vs 1. The State Of Uttar Pradesh2. The Union ... on 30 March, 1954

"On going through the judgments of this Court from Shyam Lal v. State of U.P (1955) 1 SCR 26: (AIR 1954 SC 369) down to High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal, 1998 3 SCC 72: (1998 AIR SCW 867; AIR 1998 SC 1079), one cannot but reach one conclusion regarding the power of the High Court in the matter of ordering compulsory retirement. That conclusions is that the High Courts are vested with the disciplinary control as well as administrative control over the Members of the Judicial Service exclusively, but that does not mean that they can also pass orders of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or termination from service while exercising administrative and disciplinary control over the Members of Judicial Service. Undoubtedly, the High Courts alone are entitled to initiate, to hold enquiry and to take a decision in respect of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or termination from service, but the formal order to give effect to such a decision has to be passed only by the State Governor on the recommendation of the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 225 - Full Document

High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan vs Ramesh Chand Paliwal & Anr on 19 February, 1998

"On going through the judgments of this Court from Shyam Lal v. State of U.P (1955) 1 SCR 26: (AIR 1954 SC 369) down to High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal, 1998 3 SCC 72: (1998 AIR SCW 867; AIR 1998 SC 1079), one cannot but reach one conclusion regarding the power of the High Court in the matter of ordering compulsory retirement. That conclusions is that the High Courts are vested with the disciplinary control as well as administrative control over the Members of the Judicial Service exclusively, but that does not mean that they can also pass orders of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or termination from service while exercising administrative and disciplinary control over the Members of Judicial Service. Undoubtedly, the High Courts alone are entitled to initiate, to hold enquiry and to take a decision in respect of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or termination from service, but the formal order to give effect to such a decision has to be passed only by the State Governor on the recommendation of the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 93 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1   2 Next