Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)Section 7 in The Police Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
15. The petitioner although has urged the above grounds but no prejudice could be shown in his defence. The Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala and Ors. v. S.K. Sharma as emphasised the need to establish prejudice caused in the defence of the delinquent. In the instant case the petitioner has not been able to show any prejudice to his defence.
Khem Chand vs The Union Of India And Others on 13 December, 1957
In the case of Khem Chand (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court held on the facts of that case that the appellant having not been given adequate opportunity, there was violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which is not the case at hand.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Channabasappa Basappa Happali vs State Of Mysore on 16 October, 1970
In this connection I may gainfully refer to the decision of the Apex Court as C.B. Happali v. The State of Mysore in which case also, the petitioner was a Police Officer who remained unauthorisedly absent from duty. The Apex Court brushing aside the technical pleas raised by the petitioner as in the instant case held that the factum of unauthorized absence having been admitted by the petitioner, the technical pleas towards conducting the departmental enquiry were not available to him. The Apex Court observed that the admission of fact on the part of the petitioner amounted to admission of guilt. The Apex Court in that case observed that if a police officer remained absent without leave and that position is admitted by him, the indiscipline is fully established. In the instant case also, the petitioner admitted the fact of remaining unauthorised absent from duty, although tried to explain away such absence.
Sudhir Ranjan Halder vs State Of West Bengal And Anr. on 22 March, 1961
In the case of Sudhir Ranjan (supra), the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the notice to show cause must be reasonable I do not understand how the case helps the petitioner.
Saroj Bhattacharyya vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 January, 2003
13. As regards the submission of Mr. Dasgupta, that even if the charge against the petitioner is held to be established, the penalty of discharge from service is grossly disproportionate is not at all tenable, the petitioner being a member of the disciplined force. Such a plea was raised in the case of Saroj Kr. Bhattacharyya v. Union of India and Ors. as reported in 2003(2) GLT 72. In that case also the petitioner was a member of the disciplined force and remained unauthorisedly absent from duty. Pursuant to departmental proceeding he was removed from service. Learned Single Judge of this Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court rejected the claim of the petitioner that the penalty imposed was grossly disproportionate.
S. Manickam vs Superintendent Of Police And Ors. on 1 May, 1963
During the course of argument Mr. Dasgupta placed reliance on a decision of Madras High Court as S. Manickan v. Superintendent of Police. In that case, the charge sheet issued to the petitioner was interfered with being defective. Same is not the case here. Accordingly, this case also does not help the case of the petitioner.
1