Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help



 Welcome Guest | Sep 19 2014
 
Home Skip Navigation Links
Search by Database Expand Search by Database
Skip Navigation Links
Subject Modules Expand Subject Modules
Skip Navigation Links
State Modules Expand State Modules
Skip Navigation Links
Legal Focus Expand Legal Focus
 

Login

  

Free Demo

Database Updates
Search by Database
Resources
Subject Modules

Database updates


Judgments

Dr. R. D. Chauhan vs State of Himachal Pradesh and another  [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, 12 Sep 2014]
Service - Transfer order - Assailed - Petitioner assailed transfer order whereby he got transferred from Chamba to Reckong Peo - Petitioner already completed his normal tenure at Chamba - Petitioner earlier remained posted at Chamba -

Held, transfer is an incidence of service. It is for the employer where an employee has to be posted in public interest. The scope of judicial review in these matters is very limited. The Court can intervene only when the transfer has been made in infraction of any statutory rule or the same is actuated with mala fides. petitioner has not alleged any specific mala fides. Petition dismissed.


Rakesh Kumar vs Food and Supply Department, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 12 Sep 2014]

Satish Chand vs BSES Yamuna Power Limited  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 12 Sep 2014]

Vinod Kumar Singhal vs Revenue Department, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 12 Sep 2014]

Bishnu Kant Thakur vs Environment and Forests  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 12 Sep 2014]

Nitin Mohan vs State of Uttarakhand and another  [UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT, 12 Sep 2014]

O. P. Chandak vs State of Rajasthan and others  [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, 12 Sep 2014]

P. C. Khulbe S/o R. D. Khulbe vs Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi and others  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 12 Sep 2014]

Kamini Sharma vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others  [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, 12 Sep 2014]

Dattatraya Baburao Saindar vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, S.T. Divisional Office, Ahmednagar  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 11 Sep 2014]

Harshalata Sudhakarrao Dhawale vs Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati through its Backward Class Section, Commissionerate, Amravati and others  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 11 Sep 2014]

Ashok Kumar Gupta S/o J. N. Gupta vs National Highways Authority of India Through its Chairman, New Delhi  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 11 Sep 2014]

Rohit Yadav S/o Hukum Singh vs Government of (NCT of Delhi) Through Lieutenant Governor, New Delhi and others  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 11 Sep 2014]

State of West Bengal vs Somnath Pal and another  [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, 11 Sep 2014]

Pooran Chand vs General Manager Canara Bank and another  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 11 Sep 2014]

Rajkiya Homoeopathic Medicine Board Uttar Pradesh Through Chairman vs State of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary Medical Education and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 11 Sep 2014]

Kawadu S/o Paikaji Parke vs Deputy Conservator of Forest, Pandharkawada Forest Division, Pandharkawada  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 11 Sep 2014]

State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Department of Public Health, Mantralaya, Mumbai vs Sanjivani Shripad Ranade  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 11 Sep 2014]

Sumanbai Bhaurao Shinde vs Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani Through its Registrar  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 11 Sep 2014]

M. Janagarajan vs Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 11 Sep 2014]
Service - Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 304(b) - Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, r. 3(b) - Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders, rr. 59(4), 59(1) - Dismissal from service - Violation of Principles of natural justice - Petitioner (Head Constable) was charged for offence u/s. 304(b) of IPC for having driven his wife to commit suicide by demanding dowry - Departmental proceedings and on the basis of conviction in criminal case, petitioner was issued with a show cause notice by respondent by invoking u/r. 59(1) of Standing Orders, u/r. 3(c)(i)(1) of Rules and order of dismissal was passed - Hence, instant petition - Petitioner contended dismissal from service on the basis of conviction could not be sustained as it amounts to double jeopardy and conviction order was passed without following the principles of natural justice and was against the Rules -Whether principles of double jeopardy could be applied in the instant case -

Held, r. 59(4) of the Standing Orders stipulates that where an order of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement is called for as a result of the conviction, such order should be passed immediately on conviction by the first Trial Court and not be postponed till the convicted government servant has exhausted all his rights of appeal to higher Courts. Thus, the respondent is justified in dismissing the petitioner from service after conviction and that order was passed by issuing show cause notice calling for explanation and having regard to the facts of the case, there is no need to conduct enquiry as the factum of conviction is admitted. Earlier charge was u/r. 3(b) of the Rules and the gravaman of the charge was that, by his involvement in the criminal case, he brought disrepute to the police force. The evidence let in and the finding that he ill-treated his wife and drove her to commit suicide was only incidental and the petitioner was charged for having involved in the criminal case that brought disrepute to the police force. The second show cause notice was based on r. 59 of the Standing Orders, which is on a different footing, namely, the conviction in a criminal case. Though he might have been convicted on the same set of facts, the cause of action for both the proceedings are different and the proceedings were initiated on the basis of different rules. It cannot be stated that the subsequent order of dismissal amounts to double jeopardy. Petition dismissed.

Ratio - Where an order of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement is called for as a result of the conviction, such order should be passed immediately on conviction by the first trial Court and not be postponed till the convicted government servant has exhausted all his rights of appeal to higher Courts.


Union of India and another vs Jai Kishun Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. and others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 10 Sep 2014]

Raja Ram Sharma vs Sub-Registrar-IX, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 10 Sep 2014]

Sanjay Maurya vs Entertainment and Tax Department, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 10 Sep 2014]

Mohd. Sagir vs Directorate of Vigilance Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 10 Sep 2014]

Digvijay Nath Pandey and others vs Union of India Ministry of Human Resource Development and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 10 Sep 2014]



Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer