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

1985 Supreme(Guj) 96

A.M.AHMADI
SARDARSINGH DEVISINGH – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SABARKANTHA DISTRICT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: B.D.DESAI, I.S.SUPEHIA

A. M. AHMADI, J.

( 1 ) FROM the above facts it becomes clear that the petitioner had remained absent without leave for 150 days. Being absent without leave is certainly a misconduct for which the petitioner can be visited with one of the penalties including the penalty of removal or dismissal. The question however is whether the penalty of dismissal inflicted on the petitioner is commensurate with the established guilt.

( 2 ) WHEN an authority is conferred with the power to inflict one of the several penalties such as caution or censure reprimand extra drill or duty fine stoppage of increments reduction in rank removal or dismissal it is obvious that the authority must give a serious thought to the question of choice of penalty. The choice cannot the arbitrary but arbitrary on the nature of misconduct established in a given case. Just as a road roller cannot be brought to crush a fly so also the extreme penalty of dismissal cannot be inflicted for misconduct which is not equally grave. The consequence of removal or dismissal from service are severe sometimes the entire family is ruined because another job or work may not be easy to find and therefore it is all the more necessary tha




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