Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.N.Venkatachaliah, C.J.I., S.Mohan, J.
Deputy Commissioner Of Police
Versus
Akhlaq Ahmad
Case No. : 2350 of 1991
Date of Decision : 1/3/94
(1) HEARD learned counsel on both sides.
(2) WE do consider the contentions of Shri K. Lahiri, learned Senior Counsel, against the correctness of the order of the tribunal eminently arguable. It is true that the tribunals view may not have correctly appreciated the nature of the termination and the effect its order would have on the discipline of the police force. But, subsequent to the order of the tribunal, the authorities have not only reinstated the respondent back in service which action could be explained as consistent with the directions of the tribunal but have also subsequently by a further order dated 18/02/1991 confirmed the respondent in service with effect from February I, 1986. The latter action on the part of the authorities cannot be said to have been taken under the compulsions of the tribunals order.
(3) IN view of these subsequent developments, we do not think it is proper for us to disturb and set aside the reinstatement. Indeed, this prayer has been rendered difficult to be granted by the actions of the authorities themselves.
(4) HOWEVER, we think that the direction of the Tribunal that half of the backsalary be paid, is not justified. Public money is not to be spent as a premium for such deviant conduct particularly of the members of a disciplined force. We set aside that part of the order of the tribunal and direct that no back salary whatever shall be payable to the respondent till the date of reinstatement, notwithstanding the retrospective confirmation. Respondent says that no back salary has been paid to him. If it is paid it shall be recovered.
(5) WITH these observations and directions, the petition for special leave is disposed of.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
