Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.38 seconds)Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
G. R. Luthra, Additional District ... vs Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors on 3 September, 1974
In C.R. Luthra v. U. Governor, AIR 1974 SC 1908 the Supreme Court has held as follows:
O.P. Singla & Anr. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 August, 1984
The Supreme Court further held as follows :
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India Etc. Etc vs K.V. Jankiraman Etc. Etc on 27 August, 1991
From the records it has been found act that the pendency of the criminal proceedings is not taken into account by the Screening Committee. It is also admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the adverse remarks made in 1986-87 cannot be taken into account as it had not been communicated to the applicant and the applicant was also promoted to IGP in 1990. The only point which remains for consideration is the integrity of the officer-applicant. The question that when the sealed cover procedure has been resorted to has been considered by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1993 SCC (L and S) 387). It has been held that the sealed cover procedure can be adopted only after the date of issuance
of charge sheet, that being the date from which criminal proceedings can be taken to have been initiated. It is also pointed out that the sealed cover procedure can also be adopted where the employee is placed under suspension. It has been held by the Supreme Court at page 400 as follows: