Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)
Union Of India & Anr vs K.S. Subramanian on 30 July, 1976 cites

Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957

The propositions laid down in Dhingra's case (supra) by this, Court mean that, unless a legally justifiable ground is made out for the termination of the service of a Govern- ment servant. in permanent service, in the sense that he is entitled to remain in service until he' reaches the age of retirement, he could be deemed in a given case to be pun- ished by an apparently innocent order of termination of service. If, however, the respondent belonged to a class of government servants the tenure or conditions of whose serv- ice was subject to the over-riding and unqualified sway of the power to terminate his services at will, by reason of Article 310(1) of the Constitution, we doubt whether he could claim to be a "permanent" servant, who could continue, as of right, in service until he reaches the age of super- annuation. At any rate, he could not be a "permanent" Government servant of the same class as one protected by Article 311.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 809 - Full Document

Lekh Raj Khurana vs Union Of India on 3 March, 1971

Even if we were to hold that the plaintiff-respondent was constructively punished, the provisions of Article 311, unfortunately, do not apply to such a Government servant as the respondent was. Whereas the power contained in Article 310 governs all Government servants, including those in the services connected with defence, the benefits of Article 311, which impose limitations on the exercise of this power in cases of punishment, do not extend to those who hold posts "connected with defence". Constitution Bench of this Court has held, after a review of relevant authorities, this to be the position of the. holder of a post such as that of the plaintiff-respondent in L. R: Khurana v. Union of India. (1) As the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to the protection of Article 311, the only effect of the 1965 Rules upon his case is that they could be applied if disci- plinary proceedings had been taken against him as the holder of a post "connected with defence". In other eases of such servants,. where no such disciplinary proceedings are instituted (and none were started against the plaintiff-respondent), the 1965 Rules, governing procedure for. punishments to be imposed, will not apply at all. There is no legal obligation to apply those rules here. The legal obligation to apply them to every case of punish- ment, flowing from Article 311, is confined to holders of posts covered by Article 311.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 23 - A N Grover - Full Document

The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others vs Babu Ram Upadhya on 25 November, 1960

"If there is a specific provlsion in some part of the Constitution giving to a Government servant a tenure different from that provided for in Art. 310, that Government servant is excluded from the operation of Art. 310. The said words refer, inter alia,, to Arts. 124, 148, 218 and 324 which provide that the Judges of the Supreme. Court, the Auditor General, the Judges of the High Courts and the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be re- moved from their offices except in the manner laid down in those Articles. If the provisions of the Constitution specifically prescribing different tenures were excluded from Art. 310, the purpose of that clause would be exhausted and thereafter the Article would be free from any other restrictive operation. In that event, Art. 309 and 310 should be read together, excluding the opening words in the latter Article, namely, "Except as expressly provided by this Constitution". Learned Counsel seeks to confine the operation of the opening words in Art. 309 to the provisions of the Constitution which empower other authorities to make rules relating to the conditions of service of certain classes of public servants:, namely Arts. 146(2), 148(5) and 229(2). That may:be so, but there is no reason why Art. 310. should (1) A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 751.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 800 - Full Document
1   2 Next