Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.80 seconds)Article 31 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
A.K. Kaul & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 19 April, 1995
The applicant's case also did not fall within the purview of the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in A.K. Kaul's case, (supra), wherein action under Article 311(2)(c) was permitted, if the matter relied upon for the decision to terminate the services was too sensitive to be declared, which definitely was not the case of the applicant.
The State Of Haryana & Ors vs Ram Kumar Mann on 20 February, 1997
(g) Applicant's next plea is that he has been discriminated vis-a-vis, the DIG and the Commandant, though the letter were closely concerned with the event under issue while he was concerned with it only as a Supervisor. On the part of the respondents it is pleaded that each one has been dealt with keeping in view the gravity of the offence found to have been committed by him and even if one has been given a lenient treatment wrongly, the same did not give rise to a cause of action as the ground of discrimination in terms of Article 14. Only an invidious discrimination practised by the respondents among those who are equals and similarly placed, without any rational basis Article 14 would apply. Respondents had relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kameshwar Prasad Gursharan Singh v. NDMC; Secretary Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain and State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann (supra). Besides, they have also stated that two authorities dealing with the cases of two persons subject to his disciplines, can come to two different, even contradictory conclusions, yet parity may not be available. To our mind, the respondents' defence appears to be a bit too thin for comfort. They have conceded that the applicant has been treated on a different footing from the DIG and the Commandant, in that while in his case Article 311(2)(c) was invoked and in the case of the others Article 31 l(2)(b). It is on record that the same event has led to the proceedings and that while the latter two were individuals immediately and directly concerned with the event as being responsible for the planning and execution of the raid the applicant was the Supervisory Officer brought into the picture, after the raid was completed. His culpability, if any, in the event could not have been higher than that of the DIG/ Commandant as observed earlier and, therefore, he could have, at worst been dealt with only in the same manner as others. Respondents have taken the plea that only when the distinction made is invidious, among equals, Article 14 would come into play. Circumstances of the case shows that the distinction made is just that invidious and unreasonable. Further, the respondents have neither averred that the action ordered by them against the DIG/Commandant was wrong and, therefore, their plea that the applicant cannot seek any relief on the ground of discrimination, that the mistake committed in the case of others was not extended to him, is rejected as being not maintainable. The decisions relied upon by the respondents on this aspect, do not come to their assistance but only to the assistance of the applicant. Further, the plea by the respondents that two authorities dealing with two individuals can come to two different and even contradictory decisions deserves mention only to be rejected, as both the applicants and the others were dealt with in respect of the same event and by the same authority. DG, BSF--to start with and the proceedings ordered later had emanated from the findings/recommendations of the same authority.
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India And Another vs Tulsiram Patel And Others on 11 July, 1985
34. While referring to Clause V of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Union of India and Another v. Tulsiram Patel, (supra), defined the interest of the security of the State as follows:
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India & Anr vs Balbir Singh & Anr on 5 May, 1998
Mr. Sood pointed out that the scope of judicial review is very limited in respect of orders under Article 311(2)(c) and none of the contingencies/ grounds for interference engrafted, in the cases cited, did not exist in the present case and the decision in Balbir Singh' case (supra) squarely protected the respondents' action against the DIG and Commandant under Article 311(2)(b). Further action initialed against them under Article 311(2)(b) did not vitiate the action taken under article 3 11(2)(c) against the applicant.
Secretary, Jaipur Development ... vs Daulat Mal Jain on 20 September, 1996
(g) Applicant's next plea is that he has been discriminated vis-a-vis, the DIG and the Commandant, though the letter were closely concerned with the event under issue while he was concerned with it only as a Supervisor. On the part of the respondents it is pleaded that each one has been dealt with keeping in view the gravity of the offence found to have been committed by him and even if one has been given a lenient treatment wrongly, the same did not give rise to a cause of action as the ground of discrimination in terms of Article 14. Only an invidious discrimination practised by the respondents among those who are equals and similarly placed, without any rational basis Article 14 would apply. Respondents had relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kameshwar Prasad Gursharan Singh v. NDMC; Secretary Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain and State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann (supra). Besides, they have also stated that two authorities dealing with the cases of two persons subject to his disciplines, can come to two different, even contradictory conclusions, yet parity may not be available. To our mind, the respondents' defence appears to be a bit too thin for comfort. They have conceded that the applicant has been treated on a different footing from the DIG and the Commandant, in that while in his case Article 311(2)(c) was invoked and in the case of the others Article 31 l(2)(b). It is on record that the same event has led to the proceedings and that while the latter two were individuals immediately and directly concerned with the event as being responsible for the planning and execution of the raid the applicant was the Supervisory Officer brought into the picture, after the raid was completed. His culpability, if any, in the event could not have been higher than that of the DIG/ Commandant as observed earlier and, therefore, he could have, at worst been dealt with only in the same manner as others. Respondents have taken the plea that only when the distinction made is invidious, among equals, Article 14 would come into play. Circumstances of the case shows that the distinction made is just that invidious and unreasonable. Further, the respondents have neither averred that the action ordered by them against the DIG/Commandant was wrong and, therefore, their plea that the applicant cannot seek any relief on the ground of discrimination, that the mistake committed in the case of others was not extended to him, is rejected as being not maintainable. The decisions relied upon by the respondents on this aspect, do not come to their assistance but only to the assistance of the applicant. Further, the plea by the respondents that two authorities dealing with two individuals can come to two different and even contradictory decisions deserves mention only to be rejected, as both the applicants and the others were dealt with in respect of the same event and by the same authority. DG, BSF--to start with and the proceedings ordered later had emanated from the findings/recommendations of the same authority.