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

1963 Supreme(Mad) 154

VEERASWAMI
S. Manickam – Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Police, Nilgiris and others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S. Sethuratnam, for Petitioner; S. Mohan for Addl. Govt. Pleader, for Respondents.

Judgement

ORDER :- This petition has to be allowed and the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service has to be quashed on a short ground, namely, that there is a serious defect in the charge. After setting out the charge, the memo of charge proceeded as follows :

"Show cause why you should not be dismissed from the force or otherwise punished for the above gross in disciplinary conduct."

Then followed the statement that it was proposed hold an oral enquiry on the charge. This method of framing a charge is not in consonance with Art. 311. At the stage of the charge, no question of punishment can arise. The fact that the proposed punishment is mentioned in the charge can only show that even before the charges were enquired into and a finding arrived at on the basis of the enquiry, the petitioner had been prejudged. On this short ground, as I said, the order of dismissal is quashed.

The petition is allowed. No costs.

Petition allowed.

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