Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Ishwar Chand Jain vs High Court Of Punjab & Haryana And ... on 26 May, 1988
61. It is to be pointed out that from the records placed before us, we are able to see that the petitioner joined in the service in the year 1991 and this impugned action has been initiated against him in the year 2001 that is within a short period of three years of his joining the service. At this juncture we deem it proper to cite the decision in ISHWAR CHAND JAIN V. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ANOTHER (1988) 3 SCC 370, wherein the petitioner was appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge on probation for a period of two years in accordance with Rule 10(1) of the Punjab Superior Judicial Rules 1963 and while he was posted at Hissar, the Bar Association of Hissar has passed a resolution against him as a result of which he was transferred from Hissar to Narnaul as Additional District and Sessions Judge and while he was posted at Narnaul, inquiry into certain complaints against him was held by a Judge of the High Court and after the inquiry the High Court at its meeting held on 21.3.1985, resolved that the petitioners work and conduct has not been satisfactory during his probationary period and as such his services deserved to be dispensed with forthwith and under those circumstances the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows;
Union Of India And Ors vs A.N. Saxena on 27 March, 1992
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Union of India vs. A.N.Saxena 1992-3 SCC page 124 and Union of India vs. K.K.Dhawan 1993-2 SCC Page 56 that the disciplinary action has to be initiated in respect of a judicial or a quasi-judicial action under the following circumstances:
Article 235 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India And Ors vs K. K. Dhawan on 27 January, 1993
" In K.K.Dhawan case(1993)2 SCC 56, Court listed six instances when an who exercised judicial or quasi-judicial acting negligently or recklessly could be proceeded against by way of disciplinary action. The present case would fall squarely within the fourth instance listed therein. The impugned decisions are accordingly set aside and the order of punishment upheld".
1