Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.03 seconds)
Md. Jahirul Islam vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 24 February, 2023 cites

Rakibuddin Ahmed vs The State Of Assam Represented By The ... on 4 October, 2019

7. On 10.02.2023, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner reiterated his specific contention that the continuation of the suspension of the petitioner on the basis of the impugned order is in violation to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rakibuddin Ahmed (supra).
Gauhati High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 29 - S K Medhi - Full Document

Kartar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1994

The Supreme Court thereupon taking into account the Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as the Constitution Bench Judgment in the case of Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1994) 3 SCC 569, Hussainara Khatoon (I) Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1980) 1 SCC 81 had observed that the legal expectation of expedition and diligence being present at every stage of a criminal trial and a fortiori in departmental inquiries was emphasized by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 302 - Cited by 793 - R M Sahai - Full Document

A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 29 April, 1988

It was observed that view taken by the Delhi High Court could not be sustained in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of A. R. Antulay and Others Vs. R. S. Nayak and Another reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225. It is in the above backdrop, the Supreme Court took into consideration the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and observed that the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. can be used for the purpose of moderating suspension orders in cases of departmental/disciplinary enquiries. It was observed that if the Parliament considered it necessary that a person be released from incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even though accused of commission of the most heinous crimes, a fortiori Page No.# 14/24 suspension should not be continued after the expiry of the similar period especially when a memorandum of charges/charge-sheet has not been served on the suspended person.
Supreme Court of India Cites 153 - Cited by 1309 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Raghubir Singh & Others Etc vs State Of Bihar on 19 September, 1986

"20. It will be useful to recall that prior to 1973 an accused could be detained for continuous and consecutive periods of 15 days, albeit, after judicial scrutiny and supervision. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contains a new proviso which has the effect of circumscribing the power of the Magistrate to authorise detention of an accused person beyond a period of 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and beyond a period of 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence. Drawing support from the observations contained of the Page No.# 15/24 Division Bench in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar and more so of the Constitution Bench in Antulay, we are spurred to extrapolate the quintessence of the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC, 1973 to moderate suspension orders in cases of departmental/disciplinary enquiries also. It seems to us that if Parliament considered it necessary that a person be released from incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even though accused of commission of the most heinous crimes, a fortiori suspension should not be continued after the expiry of the similar period especially when a memorandum of charges/charge-sheet has not been served on the suspended person. It is true that the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC postulates personal freedom, but respect and preservation of human dignity as well as the right to a speedy trial should also be placed on the same pedestal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 437 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Rafed Ali Ahmed vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 17 February, 2023

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the principles laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) which have been held to be applicable for deemed suspension by the Division Bench of this Court in Rakibuddin Ahmed (supra) and further the observations made by this Court in the case of Rafed Ali Ahmed Vs. State of Assam has to be applied to the facts of the instant case.
Gauhati High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 15 - D Baruah - Full Document

Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union Of India Thr Its Secretary & Anr on 16 February, 2015

7. On 10.02.2023, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner reiterated his specific contention that the continuation of the suspension of the petitioner on the basis of the impugned order is in violation to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rakibuddin Ahmed (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 2060 - V Sen - Full Document
1   2 Next