Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)

Ex. Naik Sardar Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 3 May, 1991

So also in Ex-Naik Sardar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 213 instead of one bottle of brandy that was authorized the delinquent was found carrying four bottles of brandy while going home on leave. He was sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service which was found by this Court to be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence proved against him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 136 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Hind Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 9 November, 1964

12. The decision of this Court in Hind Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Workmen (AIR 1965 SC 917) dealt with a situation where some workers had remained absent from duty treating a particular day as a holiday. 11 They were for that misconduct dismissed from service. This Court held that the absence of the workmen could have been treated as `leave without pay' and they could also be warned and not fined. Reversing the order of punishment this Court observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 160 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

M.P. Gangadharan & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 12 May, 2006

14. We may refer to the decision of this Court in M.P. Gangadharan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 162, where this Court declared that the question of reasonableness and fairness on the part of the statutory shall have to be considered in the context of the factual matrix obtaining in each case and that it cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. The following passage is in this regard apposite:
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 35 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Management Of The Federation Of Indian ... vs Their Workman, Shri R. K. Mittal on 15 November, 1971

13. Reference may also be made to Management of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry v. Workman, Shri R.K. Mittal (1972) 1 SC 40) where the employer had issued a legal notice to the federation and to the international chamber of Commerce which brought discredit to the petitioner-employer. A domestic inquiry was held in which he was found guilty and his services terminated. This Court held that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged observing:
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 22 - P J Reddy - Full Document

Ranjit Thakur vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1987

In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India & Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 611, this Court was dealing with a case where the petitioner had made a representation about the maltreatment given to him directly to the higher officers. He 10 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for that offence. While serving the sentence imposed upon him he declined to eat food. The summary court martial assembled the next day sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one more year and dismissal from service. This Court held that the punishment imposed upon the delinquent was totally disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 731 - A P Sen - Full Document
1