Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)
Beer Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 14 March, 2012 cites

Dhan Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 5 December, 1990

The explanation when read by giving effect to the expression 'inter-alia' and the place at which it finds mention would CWP No. 4782 of 2010 10 lead the Court to a conclusion, which is not in consonance with the one as reached in Dhan Singh's case. By not giving effect to the impression 'inter-alia' would virtually mean overlooking it as if the said expression did not exist in the rule itself which would result in obliterating it having the effect of virtually deleting it. This would amount to open and blatant violation of the simple meaning of the statute. It is a settled preposition of interpretation that each word used in the Statute has to be given effect to as per its literal meaning and effect and in doing so, effort should be made to fulfil the object with which the said word/expression has been used by its framers.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 82 - M F Beevi - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Gurdip Singh & Others on 5 December, 1995

Rule 16.2 (1) deals with the situation where the order of dismissal of a police officer can be passed. It provides that this punishment of dismissal shall only be awarded (i) for the gravest acts of misconduct and (ii) as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service of the officer. While passing such a punishment, regard is CWP No. 4782 of 2010 8 mandated to be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension. Although 'gravest acts of misconduct' term has been used in the Rule but it has been held in State of Punjab vs. Gurdip Singh, 1995 (1) RSJ 641, that even a single act of misconduct can, in a given situation, amount to the gravest act of misconduct but the mandate of the rule making authority is clear that the punishment of dismissal from service has not to be awarded in the case of a misconduct of ordinary nature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 30 - G N Ray - Full Document

Bhagwat Parshad vs Inspector General Of Police, Punjab And ... on 1 August, 1967

In Bhagwat Parsad vs. Inspector General of Police and others, 1967 SLR 807, it has been held that the use of word 'acts' did not exclude a single act of misconduct. In order to give effect to the legislative intent words in plural number may be construed to include the singular and the words importing the singular only, may be applied to plurality of acts, things or persons. In order to gauge gravity of misconduct, what matters, is not frequency but as obliguity or delinquency. It was for the police officer who judged the infraction of the police rules to determine the seriousness of the misconduct and to decide upon the suitability of the punishment. This would show that it is the gravity of the misconduct which would determine the punishment to be imposed upon the delinquent employee and for that such misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service, if found, punishment of dismissal shall be awarded. Regard, however, under those circumstances, also shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension, which again would be CWP No. 4782 of 2010 9 dependent upon the misconduct proved against the delinquent employee.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1