Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)Jaswant Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 27 November, 1990
In Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1991) 1 SCC 362,
observed as under:
Chief Security Officer & Ors. vs Singasan Rabi Das on 9 January, 1991
In Chief Security Officer and Others Vs. Singasan Rabi Das,
(1991) 1 SCC 729, it was alleged that while the respondent was on
duty in the Railway Yard, he allowed 22 outsiders to carry the
9 OA No.2592/2014 and connected cases
stolen Railway material after taking Rs.1 each from them. When
the respondents removed him from service, invoking powers under
Rule 44 to 46 of the Railway Protection Force, 1959, by dispensing
with the inquiry, by stating that "it is not considered feasible or
desirable to procure the witnesses of the security/other railway
employees since this will expose them and make them ineffective for
future and these witnesses, if asked to appear at a confronted
enquiry are likely to suffer personal humiliation and insults
thereafter or even their family members may become targets of acts
of violence", the Hon'ble Apex Court while dismissing the appeal
held as under:
Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors vs Mohinder Singh on 14 February, 1997
In Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others Vs. Mohinder
Singh, (1997) 3 SCC 68, the respondent, a Sub Inspector of Police,
was dismissed from service under Article 311(2)(b), by dispensing
with the inquiry, by stating that a report submitted by
Superintendent of Police proved the nefarious activities and
misdeeds of the respondent and hence, witnesses cannot come
forward freely to depose against him in a regular departmental
inquiry. It was held as under:
Tarsem Singh And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 4 July, 2005
In view of the fact that the
respondents were able to conduct PE against the applicants and
without there being any sufficient material, jumped to the
conclusion that it is not practicable to hold a regular departmental
enquiry, we are of the view, that the facts in Tarsem Singh's case
(supra) are squarely applicable to these OAs.
Ex.Constable Reena Rani vs State Of Haryana And Others on 28 September, 2010
In Reena Rani v. State of Haryana, (2012) 10 SCC 215, the
appellant, a Constable was dismissed from service by invoking
Article 311(2)(b), by stating that while she remained posted as
Prisoner Escort Guard, developed close relation with one Mustak,
despite the fact that he was involved in seven criminal cases and
hence, she did not deserve to be retained in service and it was not
practicable to hold a regular departmental inquiry because no
independent witness would be available.
Risal Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 13 May, 2014
In Risal Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2014) 13 SCC
244, the appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, as alleged, was
involved in a corruption sting operation in a television channel, and
thereafter he was dismissed from service under Article 311(2)(b) and
the relevant Paragraphs of the said order reads as under:
Ved Mitter Gill vs U.T. Administration, Chandigarh & Ors on 26 March, 2015
"29. For the reasons recorded above, we are satisfied, that all the
parameters laid down by this Court, for a valid/legal application of
clause (b) to the second proviso under Article 311(2) of the Constitution
of India, were duly complied with."