Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (4.75 seconds)Section 38 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
State Of Punjab vs Vk Khanna & Ors on 30 November, 2000
12. Now, referring to the authority of this Court in the case of
V.K. Khanna(supra), relied on by the High Court, same is
clearly distinguishable. In the said case the chargesheet dated
24.4.1997 was issued to the delinquent employee who
happened to be the Chief Secretary of the State and he was
asked to submit his reply within 21 days but even before his
reply, the Chief Minister made a statement on 27.4.1997 that
a judge of the High Court would look into the charge against
him. The aforesaid act of the Chief Minister coupled with
other factors led this Court to conclude that the action was
11
actuated by bias. In the present case the facts are completely
different.
Nyadar Singh & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 23 August, 1988
16. We may next consider whether the punishment is
permissible in service jurisprudence. It is well settled that
while an employee can be reverted to a lower post or service,
he cannot be reverted to a post lower than the post in which
he entered service (See: Nyadar Singh vs. Union of India - AIR
14
1988 SC 1979). Further it is also well settled that reversion to
a lower post or service does not permit reversion to a post
outside the cadre that is from regular post to a daily wage
post. We are therefore of the view that the punishment
inflicted on the delinquent employee not being one of the
punishments enumerated in Regulation 36, is not permissible
in law.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
1