Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)Section 4 in The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Harichand vs The Director Of School Education on 14 January, 1998
11. Reference is invited to the decision of Supreme Court in Harichand v. Director of School Education reported at . The appellant had been convicted under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment, but released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, on furnishing a bond and surety, was removed from service. The Court rejected appellant's contention that the conviction could not have been taken into account for removing the appellant from Government service in view of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Court held that:
Indian Railways Act, 1890.
Union Of India And Ors vs Bakshi Ram on 1 March, 1990
12. Applying the principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, it would be seen that in the instant case it is not any disqualification attaching to conviction under any law. It is the term of the license which gives to the respondent the right to terminate the license of a person convicted of an offence. Accordingly, Section 12 per se does not get attracted. Even otherwise, if Section 12 was applicable as held in the cases of Harichand v. Director of School Education (supra), and Union of India v. Bakshi Ram (supra), it does not preclude the consideration of the factum of conviction to be taken into account for the purpose of dismissal or retention of the person from service. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner in this regard is, therefore, without merit.
Section 144 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
Section 180 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Mahesh Kumar Mishra And Ors on 15 March, 2000
13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had also placed reliance on a number of judgments namely U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and Ors. reported at , B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Anr. reported at and Shri Nirankar Prasad Seth (since deceased) through his LRs v. Commissioner, MCD and Ors. reported at 1995 (IV) AD (Delhi) 410 to urge that the Court would interfere where the authority conducted the proceedings or held the inquiry against the delinquent officer inconsistent with the rules of natural justice. These authorities also note that Court may interfere where the punishment/penalty awarded shocks the judicial conscience. There is no dispute with regard to the above well settled propositions that in case of violation of principle of natural justice or where the punishment awarded is wholly disproportionate so as to shock the judicial conscience, the Court could interfere to mould the relief to do complete justice between the parties.
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had also placed reliance on a number of judgments namely U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and Ors. reported at , B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Anr. reported at and Shri Nirankar Prasad Seth (since deceased) through his LRs v. Commissioner, MCD and Ors. reported at 1995 (IV) AD (Delhi) 410 to urge that the Court would interfere where the authority conducted the proceedings or held the inquiry against the delinquent officer inconsistent with the rules of natural justice. These authorities also note that Court may interfere where the punishment/penalty awarded shocks the judicial conscience. There is no dispute with regard to the above well settled propositions that in case of violation of principle of natural justice or where the punishment awarded is wholly disproportionate so as to shock the judicial conscience, the Court could interfere to mould the relief to do complete justice between the parties.