This tag is associated with 4 posts

reinstated in service- The Doctrine of Equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of codelinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The Disciplinary Authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate, i.e., lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences. We have already indicated that the action of the Disciplinary Authority imposing a comparatively lighter punishment to the co-delinquent Arjun Pathak and at the same time, harsher punishment to the appellant cannot be permitted in law, since they were all involved in the same incident. Consequently, we are inclined to allow the appeal by setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant and order that he be reinstated in service forthwith. Appellant is, therefore, to be re-instated from the date on which Arjun Pathak was re-instated and be given all consequent benefits as was given to Arjun Pathak. Ordered accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.

PageĀ 1 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1334 OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2070 of 2012] Rajendra Yadav .. Appellant Versus State of M.P. & Others .. Respondents J U D G M E N T K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. … Continue reading

it is a settled law, a portion of the statement made by an accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made use of against the accused either it should be accepted in toto or it should be rejected in toto.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT   DATED: 22/12/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRIMINAL APPEAL (MD).No.378 of 2010 Senthilkumar … Appellant Vs. The State, rep by The Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Trichirappalli District, Crime No.130 of 2002. … Respondent PRAYER Appeal is filed under Section … Continue reading

no court should give directions against the law for consideration of promotion=We, therefore, find that although the respondent no.1 was eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of

Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3692 OF 2006 Union of India & Ors. … Appellants Versus B.S. Darjee & Anr. … Respondents J U D G M E N T A. K. PATNAIK, J. This is an appeal against the order dated 26.08.2004 of the Division Bench … Continue reading

correction of date of birth = the decision of the High Court, holding that the respondent was entitled to get his date of birth corrected in the service record, cannot be sustained=the High Court has allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent, directing the appellants to correct the service record of the respondent, incorporating his date of birth as 30th June, 1945 in place of 1st June, 1942, within a period of one month from the date of the impugned order. = The respondent was appointed to the post of a Police Constable in the year 1965. In the service book, prepared at the time of his entering the service, his date of birth was recorded as 1st June, 1942. His father’s name was recorded as Gayadin. This position continued till 1990, when he made a representation to the appellants seeking correction of his father’s name and date of birth in the service record. The plea of the respondent was that at the time of joining the service, his date of birth as also the name of his father was wrongly recorded on the basis of the information furnished by his maternal grandfather, who was accompanying him at that point of time as he was living with him after the death of his father. According to the respondent, he came to know about the mistake when he was promoted as Head Constable. In support of his application, the respondent submitted his class IV marksheet, transfer certificate of class VIII and a certificate from a local MLA.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2331 OF 2004 STATE OF M.P & ORS. — APPELLANTS VERSUS PREMLAL SHRIVAS — RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T D.K. JAIN, J.: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th January, 2002 passed by … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,326 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com