Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)
Ajit Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 2 November, 2007 cites

Union Of India And Another vs Tulsiram Patel And Others on 11 July, 1985

62. Before, however, any clause of the second proviso can come into play the condition laid down in it must be satisfied. The condition for the application of each of these clauses is different. In the case of Clause (a) a government servant must be guilty of conduct deserving the penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank which conduct has led to him being convicted on a criminal charge. In the case of Clause (b) the disciplinary authority must be satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. In the case of Clause (c) the President or the Governor of a State, as the case may be, must be, satisfied that in the interest of security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry. When these conditions can be said to be fulfilled will be discussed later while dealing separately with each of the three clauses. The paramount thing, however, to bear in mind is that the second proviso will apply only where the conduct of a government servant is such as he deserves the punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. If the conduct is such as to deserve a punishment different from those mentioned above, the second proviso cannot come into play at all, because Article 311(2) is itself confined only to these three penalties. Therefore, before denying a government servant his constitutional right to an inquiry, the first consideration would be whether the conduct of the concerned government servant is such as justifies the penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. Once that conclusion is reached and the condition specified in the relevant clause of the second proviso is satisfied, that proviso becomes applicable and the government servant is not entitled to an inquiry. The extent to which a government servant can be denied his right to an inquiry formed the subject-matter of considerable debate at the Bar and we, therefore, now turn to the question whether under the second proviso to Article 311(2) even though the inquiry is dispensed with, some opportunity at least should not be afforded to the government servant so that he is not left wholly without protection. As most of the arguments on this part of the case were common to all the three clauses of the second proviso, it will be convenient at this stage to deal at one place with all the arguments on this part of the case, leaving aside to be separately dealt with the other arguments pertaining only to a particular clause of the second proviso.
Supreme Court of India Cites 138 - Cited by 1450 - D P Madon - Full Document

I.R. Coelho (Dead) By Lrs vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 11 January, 2007

27. Let us now deal with next question as to whether judicial review is permissible in law and the orders have been passed by the competent authority in accordance with law? Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would cite [I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamilnadu] in order to show that judicial review is permissible when the jurisdiction of the authority is questioned. As correctly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the word 'final' as contemplated under Article 311(3) of the Constitution would not prevent this Court to make a judicial review of the orders impugned under Article 226 since this Court is called upon to find out whether the authority who passed the orders is having jurisdiction to pass those orders and the said authority has exercised powers in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the relevant rules and the relevant Articles of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 83 - Cited by 121 - Full Document

The State Of West Bengal vs Nripendra Nath Bagchi on 10 September, 1965

(i) [The State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi] [at page 789] ...It only means that the High Court cannot appoint or dismiss or remove District Judges. In the same way the High Court cannot use the special jurisdiction conferred by the two provisos. The High Court cannot decide that it is not reasonably practicable to give a District Judge an opportunity of showing cause of that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to give such an opportunity. This the Governor alone can decide. That certain powers are to be exercised by the Governor and not by the High Court does not necessarily take away other powers from the High Courts. The provisos can be given their full effect without giving rise to other implications. It is obvious that if a case arose for the exercise of the special powers under the two provisos, the High Court must leave the matter to the Governor....
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 165 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1   2 Next