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

1993 Supreme(Guj) 294

R.K.ABICHANDANI, S.NAINAR SUNDARAM, SHARAD D.DAVE
P. D. WAGHELA – Appellant
Versus
G. C. RAIGER – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: A.R.DAVE, AJIT PADIVAL, T.S.NANAVATI

S. NAINAR SUNDARAM, J.

( 1 ) THE question, we, as a Full Bench, are being called upon to dscide, turns on the interpretation that should be put on the expression conviction, found in clause (a) of the second proviso to clause (2) of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. The question is would the conviction at the hands of a competent Criminal Court in the first instance suffice, or should the conviction await confirmation at the hands of a final or ultimate competent Criminal Court ? The placement of clause (a) of the second proviso to clause (2) of Art. 311 will stand better appreciated if the entire Art. 311, as it stands in the Statute Book, is extracted as follows :"311. (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of these charges : provided that wh

























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