Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.37 seconds)Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957
34. It is profitable to refer to what five learned Judges of this Court laid
down in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v Union of India, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 5:
Satish Chandra Anand vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 1953
"28. The position may, therefore, be summed up as follows: Any and every
termination of service is not a dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. A
termination of service brought about by the exercise of a contractual right
is not per se dismissal or removal, as has been held by this Court in
Satish Chander Anand v. Union of India [(1953) 1 SCC 420: (1953) SCR
655].
Shyam Lal vs 1. The State Of Uttar Pradesh2. The Union ... on 30 March, 1954
Likewise the termination of service by compulsory retirement in
terms of a specific rule regulating the conditions of service is not
tantamount to the infliction of a punishment and does not attract Article
311(2), as has also been held by this Court in Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(1955) 1 SCR 26]. In either of the two abovementioned cases the
16
OA No. 2027/2020
Item No. 43(C-3)
termination of the service did not carry with it the penal consequences of
loss of pay, or allowances under Rule 52 of the Fundamental Rules.
Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Chief Security Officer & Ors. vs Singasan Rabi Das on 9 January, 1991
3.4. Placing reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Chief Security Officer Vs. Singasan Rabidas 1991 (5) J.T 117, learned
counsel for the applicant submitted that dispensing with the enquiry for
10
OA No. 2027/2020
Item No. 43(C-3)
even non-deposition of witness due to fear was held to be illegal by the
Hon'ble Apex Court.