Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)
Binod Kumar Malakar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 27 April, 2009 cites

B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995

7. We must detain ourselves to consider the most important question arising in the 7 present case, whether the extreme penalty of dismissal from service is justified or not. A number of factors operate against the petitioner. He had carefully planned for theft, which means that he was determined to bring about wrongful loss to the owner of the articles. It is another matter that good-luck did not come his way, the pocket contained meagre amount, and he was caught red handed. The meagre haul attributable to fortuitous circumstances, does not detract from the petitioner's culpability. The learned Government Counsel is right in his submission that protectors cannot be permitted to become perpetrators. The petitioner was undoubtedly a member of the Bihar Police Force, uniformed service, where such an act can never be countenanced. He rightly relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, (Supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 2256 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Police And Ors vs Syed Hussain on 25 January, 2006

He is further right in relying the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Syed Hussain (supra). That was a case where the authorities had inflicted punishment of dismissal of service in a situation where he had stood surety for bail in favour of the accused persons. The High Court interfered with the order and substituted the same by the punishment of 8 compulsory retirement from service, inter alia, on the ground that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of the proven charges. Completely disagreeing with the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court restored the order of dismissal from service. Paragraphs 14 to 16 of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 60 - Full Document

Ram Dhani Mahto vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 31 March, 2009

3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has rendered unblemished service to the Bihar Police Force up to 1st June 2000. He next submits that there cannot be any justification for a permanent employee of Bihar Police Force to commit such a petty theft and to jeopardize his career. He next submits that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the establishment nor was afforded the opportunity to examine his own witnesses in support of his defence. He lastly submits that the extreme penalty of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the gravity of the proven charges. He relies on the judgment of this Court in Ram Dhani Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2007 (4) P.L.J.R. 332, 4 wherein the order of punishment of another Class- IV employees of the State Government was upheld by this Court, where the gravity of the proven charges were far more serious than the present one. He also relies on the following reported judgments:
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - M Mishra - Full Document
1