Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
Balkar Singh vs State Of Punjab Etc on 3 May, 2016 cites

Jagmohan Lal vs State Of Punjab Through Secy. To Punjab ... on 18 August, 1966

11. India follows the common law and the address of Sir Geoffrey Lawrence in his concluding address to the Jury is relevant in the context of the criminal law of sentencing. Closer home this is even the view of this since at least 1967 in Jagmohan Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 Punjab & Haryana 422 speaking through Jagan Nath Kaushal, J in his brief tenure as a Judge of this Court before he resigned office and a celebrated criminal lawyer of his time, holding as follows:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Bhag Singh vs Punjab And Sind Bank And Ors. on 16 August, 2005

Sub Rule (iii) of Rule 7.3 further provides for treating the entire period of suspension preceding dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement as a period spent on duty for all purposes in a case covered under Sub Rule (ii). A bare reading 10 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:11:37 ::: CWP No.21586 of 2015 (O&M) -11- of the provision as contained in Rule 7.3 would make it clear that a Government employee who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended, is reinstated upon having been fully exonerated, then he shall be given full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled to had he not been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended as the case may be. In other words, the above quoted rule clearly specifies that a dismissed employee when reinstated upon exoneration is entitled to be granted full pay and allowances to which he would have been otherwise entitled to had he not been dismissed from service. Whereas, Rule 7.5 specifically prescribes that in the event of a Government employee acquitted of the blame and it is proved that the official's liability arose from circumstances beyond control or the detention being held by the competent authority to be unjustified, he would be entitled to full salary... "That now, it becomes abundantly clear that Rule 7.3 of the Rules is the general rule, while in case a person is acquitted, it is specific Rule 7.5 of the Rules that would be attracted. The law is well settled that specific Rule will always take precedence over the general rule and consequently, it must follow that under Rule 7.5 of the Rules, referred to above, the petitioner was entitled to the full back wages. In other words, in terms of Rule 7.5 of the Rules, on petitioner's being acquitted, he would be entitled to full salary and allowances for the period of suspension and dismissal... "That in other words, Rule 7.3 (i) empowers the competent authority to decide in respect to the period of a Government employee who remained dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired or under suspension. Sub Rule (ii) of Rule 7.3, however, specifically prescribes that in the event of a Government employee 11 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:11:37 ::: CWP No.21586 of 2015 (O&M) -12- who had been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired and has been fully exonerated, upon reinstatement, he shall be paid full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled to, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended. Sub Rule (iii) or Rule 7.3 further provides for treating the entire period of suspension preceding dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement as a period spent on duty for all purpose."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 43 - S S Nijjar - Full Document
1