Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (1.85 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Police & Ors vs Om Prakash Budhwar on 1 September, 2022
(v) In view of the judgment dated 14.08.2024 of the
Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 11276/2014 in
the matter of The Commissioner of Police & Ors.
Vs. Om Prakash and Anr., we do not find any
improvement in the manner of working of the
respondents and come to the conclusion that this
43
OA No. 645/2024
OA No. 579/2024
Item No.16/C-II
Tribunal cannot remain a mute spectator to such
inactions of the respondents. We are of the firm view
that inaction on the part of respondents deserves to be
dealt with seriously and accordingly, a cost of Rs.
50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) each is imposed upon
the respondents nos. 2 & 3. The cost shall be paid in
the Prime Minister‟s Relief Funds within above
mentioned period of eight weeks. The respondent no. 1
is further directed to record inaction on the part of the
Respondents nos. 2 & 3 in their APAR for the year
2025-26.
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Commissioner Of Police, Delhi vs Manjeet on 6 September, 2012
Sub: W.P. (C) No. 1258/2023 & CM Appl. No. 4759/2023 in the
matter of Commissioner of Police, Delhi vs. Manjeet.
Commissioner Of Police And Anr. vs Jagmal Singh And Anr. on 2 August, 2002
(vi) In the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11681/2024 filed by
the Commissioner of Police & Anr. Vs. Jagmal Singh,
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide its judgment on 10.07.2024 has
dismissed the said SLP and the judgment of Hon‟ble Court of
Delhi attained finality.
Section 11 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
Union Of India And Another vs Tulsiram Patel And Others on 11 July, 1985
"The respondents, after considering the provisions of Article 311
(2) (b) of the Constitution of India and the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tulsiram Patel (supra) and
the Order(s)/Judgment(s) passed by this Tribunal have issued
another circular dated 11.09.2007 (Annexure A/13 of the
rejoinder filed in OA 467/2020). In the said circular, they have
emphasized that the disciplinary authority should pass a
speaking order(s) based and supported by material/facts on
record for dispensing with prior inquiry and before passing such
order(s), the disciplinary authority should be satisfied that it is
not practicable to hold an inquiry in view of threat, inducement,
intimidation, affiliation with criminals etc. and the disciplinary
authority has no option but to resort to Article 311 (2) (b) of the
Constitution of India. The said circular dated 11.09.2007 reads as
under:-
Commissioner Of Police And Anr vs Mehar Singh on 2 July, 2013
7.1 Learned counsel for the respondents, in the additional
affidavit filed by them on 15.01.2025, has placed reliance upon the
following orders/judgments namely; (i) Union of India Vs.
Tulsiram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC 398]; (ii) The Commissioner
of Police, Delhi Vs. Mehar Singh [(2013) 7 SCC 685] and
Dy.Inspector Gen.Of Police & Anr vs S.Samuthiram on 30 November, 2012
(iii) The Deputy Inspector General of Police Vs. S.
Samuthiram [(2013) 1 SCC 598].