Judgments - Punishment
CHHOTEY LAL @ CHHUTALLA VERSUS STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI
OM PRAKASH JAIN VERSUS SMT. PUSHPA JAIN
STATE VERSUS KUNDAN KUMAR
STATE GNCT OF DELHI VERSUS BALJEET SINGH @ SHANKEY
RAMESH KUMAR VERSUS GOVT. OF NCTD & ORS
MUNISHAMAPPA & ORS. Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
PARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND ORS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.
Madhavan & Ors Versus The State of Tamil Nadu
Notably, the High Court has not considered the issue of quantum of sentence at all, but mechanically proceeded to affirm the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. From the factual position, which has emerged from the record, it is noticed that there was a pre-existing property dispute between the two families. The incident in question happened all of a sudden without any premeditation after PW1 questioned the appellants about their behavior. It was a free fight between the two family Full Judgment
SOHAIL ABDUL RASHID SHAIKH Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Union of India and Ors. Versus Ex LAC Nallam Shiva
To put it differently, in the fact situation of the present case, it is not possible to hold that the punishment of dismissal was vindictive, unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offence committed by the respondent and especially after the Tribunal has positively concluded that failure of the respondent to communicate either to his unit or to the nearest military stationf or around 1½ years was uncondonable. Ordinarily, the Tribunal ought not to interfere with the order of punishment except Full Judgment
NEERA YADAV Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON
A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that if the elements of any of the three sub-clauses are met, the same would be sufficient to constitute an offence of ‘criminal misconduct’ under Section 13(1)(d). Undoubtedly, all the three wings of clause (d) of Section 13(1) are independent, alternative and disjunctive. Thus, under Section 13(1)(d)(i) obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means by a public servant in itself would amount to criminal misconduct. On Full Judgment
P.N. MOHANAN NAIR Versus STATE OF KERALA
The short question of law for consideration is, if the offences essentially constitute a single transaction, but have been split up by the prosecution into three separate cases, will the sentences imposed individually, run concurrently or consecutively? Suffice it to observe that in the facts of the case, the exercise of discretion under Section 427(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, mandates that the substantive sentences imposed upon the appellant in the three separate prosecutions, are directed to run concurrently,except the default Full Judgment
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY Vs. SUSHIL ANSAL AND ANR.
VIJAY SHANKAR MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
More importantly, certain inbuilt safeguards against discharge from service based on four red ink entries have also been prescribed. The first and foremost is an unequivocal declaration that mere award of four red ink entries to an individual does not make his discharge mandatory. This implies that four red ink entries is not some kind of Laxman Full Judgment
CEO, KRISHNA DISTRICT COOP. CENTRAL BANK LTD AND ANR Vs. K HANUMANTHA RAO AND ANR
The impugned order is also faulted for the reason that it is not the function of the High Court to impose a particular punishment even in those cases where it was found that penalty awarded by the employer is shockingly disproportionate. In such a case, the matter could, at the best, be remanded to the disciplinary authority for imposition of lesser punishment leaving it to such authority to consider Full Judgment
H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD Vs. MAHESH DAHIYA
“Hence it has to be held that when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer’s report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. That Full Judgment
VEERENNDRA KUMAR DUBEY Vs. CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF & ORS
The first and foremost is an unequivocal declaration that mere award of four red ink entries to an individual does not make his discharge mandatory. This implies that four red ink entries is not some kind of laxman rekha, which if crossed would by itself render the individual concerned undesirable or unworthy of retention in the force. Award of four red ink entries simply pushes the individual concerned into a grey area where Full Judgment