Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.33 seconds)Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September, 1990
12. A reading of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 5 would show that it applies to cases not otherwise provided for under Sub-rule (5). The expression 'save as otherwise provided in sub-rule(5)' itself would disclose that for actions which are not otherwise provided under Sub-rule (5), the Government can take action to terminate the appointment of the Law Officer without assigning any reason by giving one month's notice in writing or by giving a month's retainer fee in lieu of such notice. The impugned notification which purports to invoke both Sub-clause (5) and (6) of Rule 5 cannot be termed as one passed in exercise of Sub-rule (6). The background of the facts, as adverted to above would unmistakably show that the power is exercised under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 5. In the absence of compliance of the requirements of rules of natural justice, the petitioner could not have been removed under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 5. The action would certainly demoralise a Law Officer. Counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that the duties of a Law Office cannot be equated with that of a professional who is engaged by a private client as the responsibilities entrusted to the Law Officer partake a public character and any order removing him from service from such post on the basis of allegations made by a third party would have a serious repercussion on him in his future professional career. The Apex Court in Shrilekha's Case has held that the Constitution of India does not envisage or permit unfairness or unreasonableness in State action in any sphere of its activities contrary to the professed ideals in the preamble. Exclusion of Article 14 in contractual matters is not permissible in constitutional scheme.
State Of Punjab vs Gurdial Singh & Ors on 25 October, 1979
13. Administrative powers should be exercised within defined limits in the reasonable discretion of the designated authority. Where the true object of an action is to reach an end different from the one for which the power is entrusted and the actions are guided by extraneous considerations, irrelevant to the entrustment of such power and when the custodian of such power is influenced in its exercise by considerations outside those for promotion of which the power is vested, the Court will step in as the power so exercised can be characterised as colourable exercise. This is what the Apex Court has categorically held in Gurdial Singh's case. The ratio laid down in the aforementioned decision is applicable to the exercise of powers by the respondent in this case. Hence, I have no hestitation to hold that the impugned notification issued removing the petitioner from the post as Government Pleader is illegal and unsustainable. Hence, I pass the following:
Suman Gupta And Others Etc vs State Of J & K And Others on 19 September, 1983
Further in the decision reported in the case of Suman Gupta and Ors. v. State of J and K and Ors.,1983 (4) SCC 339 the Apex Court has held that Article 14 is violated by powers and proceedings which in themselves result in unfairness and arbitrariness.
Section 125 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1