Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.22 seconds)Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sudhakaran vs State Of Kerala on 26 October, 2010
It is not the case of the petitioner that he
was appointed as a Motor Vehicle Inspector in 1991
9
by the State Government under any statutory rule.
The framing of statutory Cadre Rules on 29.9.2003
shall supersede any executive instructions existing
earlier. That executive instructions may supplement
statutory rules if there be any omissions but that it
cannot supplant stands a well established principle.
Any executive instructions holding the field prior to
framing of statutory rules automatically ceased upon
the Rules coming into force as explained in the case
of Sudhakaran (supra) at paragraph 12.4 relied
upon by the respondents :-
Union Of India And Another vs Tulsiram Patel And Others on 11 July, 1985
"30. An order of a disciplinary
authority in a case of this nature, as
laid down by this Court in Tulsiram,
must be judged by a court exercising
power of judicial review by placing
himself in his armchair. The
disciplinary authority was a man at
the spot. He acted on the basis of a
report made to him. He also knew
about the written poster having been
displayed. The atmosphere which was
prevailing in the workshop must be
known to him."
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & ... on 28 March, 1958
Rule- 2g of the cadre Rules constituting
the cadre of Motor Vehicles Inspector includes those
appointed on the post prior to the promulgation of
the Rules. The distinction sought to be made
between those appointed prior to the promulgation of
the Rules and thereafter is therefore contrary to the
Rules. There is no challenge to the Rules. An
anomalous position shall be created of two sets of
Motor Vehicle Inspectors holding the same post,
drawing the same salary and discharging the same
10
nature of duties. Article 14 of the Constitution
permits classification, but it has be based on
intelligible differentia having nexus with the object to
be achieved. No material or grounds for such
classification has been urged. The Supreme Court in
A.I.R.1958 SC 538 (Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice
S.R. Tendolkar )at paragraph 11 has observed :-
Ajit Kumar Nag vs G.M.(P.J.)Indian Oil Corporation. ... on 19 September, 2005
"34. The High Court, in our opinion,
was also not correct in opining that an
immediate action, which was taken,
was done in haste. It was, in fact, a
case where an immediate action was
absolutely essential. This Court in Ajit
Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.
noticed the dicta laid down in Tulsiram
Patel which reads as under: (Ajit
Kumar case7, SCC p. 766c-d)
"... Not taking prompt action may also
be construed by the troublemakers as
a sign of weakness on the part of the
authorities and thus encourage them
to step up their activities or agitation.
Where such prompt action is taken in
order to prevent this happening, there
is an element of deterrence in it but
this is an unavoidable and necessary
concomitance of such an action
resulting from a situation which is not
of the creation of the authorities."
Manager, Nirmala Senior, Secondary ... vs N.I. Khan & Ors on 21 November, 2003
The Supreme Court emphasizing the need
for discipline at the workplace has observed in
(2003) 12 SCC 84 (Manager, Nirmala Senior
Secondary School v. N.I. Khan) as follows :-
Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd vs N.B. Narawade on 22 February, 2005
The importance of discipline at the work
place has again been noticed in (2005) 3 SCC 134
(Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B.
Narawale),holding at paragraph 20 as follows : -