Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.16 seconds)

The State Of Bihar vs Abdul Majid on 11 February, 1954

The learned Advocate also drew our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Bihar v. Abdul Majud, but this decision In our view is not of any assistance to the appellant. It was also argued that the action of the Respondents in depriving the appellant of the time scale of pay and in stopping all future increments amounted to reduction in rank and as no opportunity was given to him to show cause against this action proposed to be taken there was contravention of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and so the order complained or was bad. But it is to be noted that in order that the provisions of Article 311 may be attracted the reduction has to be by way of imposition of penalty but where such reduction results from a normal step taken in the course of office administration to rectify an error or a mistake and there is no penalty involved in the readjustment, there is no reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution and the procedure prescribed In Clause (2) of Article 311 need not be followed. (See Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. union of India, . This disposes of ail the points raised in this appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 125 - M C Mahajan - Full Document
1