SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 602

K.RAMASWAMY, G.B.PATTANAIK
Director General Of Police – Appellant
Versus
Mrityunjoy Sarkar – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

2.The admitted position is that the respondents came to be appointed by proceedings dated April 25/26, 1985 as Constables in the State Armed Police. The basis for their recruitment was the list furnished by the Employment Exchange, Katwa. They are discharged from the service by proceedings effective from January 1, 1986 which came to be challenged in the High Court. The High Court has set aside the order of discharge. On appeal, it was confirmed in MFA No.682/1987 by order dated March 26, 1991. Thus this appeal by special leave.

3. In the discharge order, it was stated that the respondents had exercised the power under Rule 34[b] of the West Bengal Service Regulations [Part I] and the instructions contained in Memo No. 4145 [2] dated November 22, 1985 of the Assistant Inspector General of Police, West Bengal. It is not in dispute that the Commissioner of Labour in his letter dated September 5/7, 1985 had informed the appellants that the list of the names forwarded by the Employment Exchange was fake one and their names were fabricated as they do not correspond to the entries in the Employment Exchange. Consequently



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top