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

1959 Supreme(MP) 187

G.P.BHUTT, T.C.SHRIVASTAVA
BALAKDAS VITHOBA – Appellant
Versus
SECURITY OFFICER, S. E. RLY. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
J.N.SINHA, K.K.DUBEY

SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS order shall also dispose of the connected Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 31, 34 and 39, all of 1957. All these appeals are directed against the order of Choudhuri J. refusing to interfere with the removal of the petitioners from service.

( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that all the petitioners are Class IV employees of the railway administration and were appointed by the Superintendent, Watch and Ward Department, Chakradharpur. In the year 1955, this department was given the name of Security Force, and the Chief Security Officer was declared its head. Rules governing the conditions of service of the Security Force were made by the President purporting to act under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Under these rules, the Assistant Security Officer was designated as the appointing and dismissing authority of Class IV servants in the Security Force. All the petitioners were removed from service by the Assistant Security Officer acting under the powers conferred by these rules.

( 3 ) THE only point that has been urged before us against the orders of the learned Single Judge is that since the Assistant Security Officer is an authority below the rank of the Sup







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