Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.28 seconds)
Head Constable Sukhbir Singh vs The Commissioner Of Police on 26 November, 2012 cites

The Deputy Director Of Collegiate ... vs S. Nagoor Meera on 24 February, 1995

10. The above said judgment was challenged by the respondents before Honble High Court of Delhi by filing Writ Petition No. 1044/2008 wherein the specific issue considered was whether notwithstanding the proviso to Rule 11 (1) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, a police officer can be dismissed or removed from service during the pendency of a first appeal against an order of conviction and sentence. The Honble High Court referred to the Circular dated 9.12.2005 as also the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras Vs. S. Nagoor Meera (supra) and observed as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 164 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Asi Brij Pal Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 14 November, 2011

9. The question before us is whether such kind of dismissal is sustainable in law or not. The question need not detain us for long because it has already been discussed at length and decided in batch of matters in the case of Brij Pal Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT and Other connected matters (OA Nos. 546/2006 with other connected OAs) wherein circular dated 9.12.2005 issued by Delhi Police was quashed and set aside and it was held since there is a specific provision Rule 11 (1) in Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 which reads as under:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

K.C. Sareen vs C.B.I., Chandigarh on 2 August, 2001

Proviso in Rule 11(1) of The Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 has not become defunct on account of the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras Vs. S. Nagoor Meera, AIR 1995 SC 1364) and K.C. Sareen Vs. CBI (2001 (6) SCC 584), in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It, therefore, cannot be ignored.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 413 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Police vs Shri Brij Pal Singh on 4 December, 2008

The said order was also upheld by the Honble High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Police vs. Brij Pal Singh, 155 (2008) DLT 115. Thereafter the respondents vide order dated 17.2.2009 reinstated the applicant but placed him under continued suspension. It was in the above background that the respondents have issued the impugned orders dated 17.9.2010 to hold a regular departmental enquiry against the applicant. The enquiry officer has also issued the summary of allegations against him vide letter dated 1.11.2010.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 12 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Chandra Kishore Jha vs Mahavir Prasad & Ors on 21 September, 1999

53. In view of the propositions mentioned above, I do not agree with the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General that the impugned Circular dated 09.12.2005 has the power of a rule. As a matter of fact, insofar as the said Circular was issued without obtaining the approval of the Administrator/Lieutenant Governor and was neither published in the Official Gazette nor laid before each House of Parliament, it does not qualify even to be a Regulation in terms of Section 19 of the Act of 1978. The order of this Tribunal in the case of Head Constable Rajpal Singh & Ors. etc. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) is of little assistance to the respondents insofar as there are other infirmities aforementioned, particularly the absence of approval of the Administrator/Lieutenant Governor, in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 234 - Full Document

Babu Verghese & Ors vs Bar Council Of Kerala & Ors on 16 March, 1999

52. Rules in the present case are not silent on the issue as to what is to be done if a Police personnel is convicted in a criminal case. It is a basic principle of law that if the manner to do a particular work is prescribed in any statute, as argued by one of the counsels of the applicants, the act must be done in that manner only [Chander Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad & Ors. (supra); Babu Verghese & Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala & Ors., 1999 (3) SCC 422; and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 358]. It, therefore, cannot be left to the discretion of administrative authorities to decide as to which rule should be followed and which need not be followed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 370 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1   2 Next