Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Canara Bank vs V.K. Awasthy on 31 March, 2005
16. Even otherwise, action of respondents, in the present case,
is violative of principles of natural justice which demand
that nobody should be condemned unheard. The
delinquent official is required to be afforded an opportunity
of being heard before any administrative action is taken
against him. The Apex Court in Canara Bank v.
V.K.Awasthy AIR 2005 SC 2090, has held:
Justice P.D. Dinakaran vs Hon'Ble Judges Inquiry Committee & Ors on 5 July, 2011
In P. D. Dinakaran (1) v. Judges Inquiry Committee and
others 2011(8) SCC 380, the Apex Court has held:-
State Of Haryana & Anr vs Jagdish Chander on 13 January, 1995
In this regard, the Supreme Court in State of
Haryana and another v. Jagdish Chander AIR 1995 SC
984, while dealing with a case of Constable, who was
SWP no.300/2016 Page 7 of 15
8
absent from duty for a particular period and discharged
under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, which is pari
material to Rule 187 of J&K Police Rules, without
conducting enquiry and declaring him "unlikely to prove an
efficient police officer, being habitual absentee, negligent
to his duty and in disciplined, has held:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Mohd.Yunus Khan vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 28 September, 2010
19. I am also fortified by the view taken by the Apex Court in a
judgment titled Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others, 2010(10) SCC 539, wherein it is held
as under:-
Bashir Ahmad Mir vs State Of J&K; & Ors. on 31 August, 2015
The same view
has been reiterated in Bashir Ahmad's case (supra) by
SWP no.300/2016 Page 10 of 15
11
holding that no doubt Rule 187 of the Police Rules gives to
Superintendent to discharge a probationer within three
years of enrolment, yet he is of the view that such
probationer is not likely to prove a good police official but
since the finding casts a stigma on the career of the
constable and there is likelihood that the ground for such
discharge order may act as an impediment for any future
employment, provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of
India are attached and therefore, the discharge order
should not be passed without affording an opportunity of
being heard.
1