Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.54 seconds)Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S.P. Biswas And Others Etc vs State Bank Of India And Others on 27 August, 1991
Yet again in S.P. Biswas and Others v. State Bank of India [1991
Supp (2) SCC 354], the court refused to interfere with the result of the
examination as it was shown that there had been neither any mass copying
nor the final result was shown to have been influenced by the unfair means
by any candidate.
Union Territory Of Chandigarh vs Dilbagh Singh And Ors on 3 November, 1992
(a) Dilbagh Singh (supra) at paragraph 3
Krishan Yadav vs State Of Haryana (Mohan J.) on 12 May, 1994
[See also Rupa Hurra V. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388 and Krishan
Yadav (supra)]
It is not necessary for us, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to
give our final views as regard the current rein in the precedent, i.e., from
likelihood of bias to 'real danger of bias' as was observed in M.P. Special
Police Establishment v. State of M.P. [(2004) 8 SCC 788] but we may only
observe that if the principles of bias which have been highlighted by Mr.
Rao for attacking the conduct of Mr. Sindhu as a Constitutional functionary
are correct, there is no reason as to why the same principles would not apply
to the case of judicial officers. The apprehension in the mind of judicial
officers that inferences had been drawn on the basis of non-existent fact
cannot be ruled out. It was in the aforementioned premise, the officers
should have at least been given an opportunity to have a look to the reports
on the basis whereof they had been categorized as tainted officers. We fail
to understand if ultimately in the opinion of the High Court, the Judicial
Offices were found to be entitled to look the said report, why the copies
thereof were not made available to them or at least why inspection thereof
was not given at an appropriate time so as to enable them to make their
submissions. Curiously enough only when after the oral submissions were
over and written submissions have been filed, although the writ petition
belonging to other categories of services were being heard, the arguments
advanced on behalf of the Judicial Officers were directed to be closed and
only on the next date when the counsel had no occasion to make comments
upon the reports, the same were read out in the Court and allowed to be
inspected by the counsel. It may be that the Superior Judiciary always make
endeavours to deal with the judicial officers in all seriousness it deserves;
but then such harsh punishments may be meted out only when there are
sufficient materials on record so as to enable it to satisfy itself upon adopting
a fair procedure. We have no hesitation to observe that the Judicial Officers
were unfairly treated by the High Court.
Union Of India vs Anand Kumar Pandey on 18 July, 1994
(c) Anand Kumar Pandey (supra) at paragraph 4.
Hanuman Prasad & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 6 September, 1996
(d) Hanuman Prasad (supra)
Union Of India & Ors vs O. Chakradhar on 19 February, 2002
(c) O. Chakradhar (supra) wherein appointments had been
made without type-writing tests and other procedures of
selection having not been followed.
B. Ramanjini & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 26 April, 2002
(e) B. Ramanjini (supra) at paragraph 4.