 |
发布于：2018-11-21 22:53:20 访问:12 次 回复:0 篇
版主管理 | 推荐 | 删除 | 删除并扣分
SimranLaw - Top Landlord Tenant Disputes Advocates In Chandigarh House Number 815 Sector 16D Chandigarh 9876616815 - What Does Lawyer Mean?
"Equality before the law" or "equal protection of the laws" within the territory of India is available to any person (Art. " Government had not arrived at any such decision and there- fore could not have and was not bound to refuse leave by resorting to r. The attack on the validity of the Inquiries Act on the ground that the word "misbehaviour" is vague must therefore fail. As our ]judgment will show, we are inclined to answer both the questions in the affirmative. Their status as British subjects was analogous to the status of citizens of a republic. 20); so is the protection of life and personal liberty under Art. It may be sufficient to observe that before the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the Legislature was invested with the power to confer upon foreigners rights as British Indians by naturalization, and had also sought to invest the Government of the day with power to deny entry into India to foreigners or even of nationals of British possessions. It may be pointed out in this connection that even if the appellant is correct in his argument that at the date of the Act in 1850 no ascertainable standard of conduct for government servants had been laid down this argument is not available to him after such standard was clearly laid down in the numerous Government Servants` Conduct Rules. Part III of the Constitution deals with Funda- mental Rights. Even the rule as it stood Lawyers In Chandigarh High Court the 1941 rules could not have justified the Government resorting to it for refusing leave to the appellant. Some fundamental rights are available to "any person", whereas other fundamental rights can be available only to "all citizens". Similarly the subjects of the Indian States had the rights of citizenship within their own States, and those rights were not affected by the stand- still and merger agreements of their rulers with the Domi- nion of India. The protection against the enforcement of ex-post-facto laws or against double-jeopardy or against compulsion of -self-incrimination is available to all persons (Art. 311(2) cannotbe said to have been contravened by the appellant. "Leave shall not be granted to a Government servant whom a competent authority has decided to dismiss, remove or compulsorily retire from Government service. But this is due entirely to the fact that an express provision has been made in those enactments to counteract that effect. succeeds on the first point, but fails on the second. 21 and protection against arrest and detention in certain cases, under Art. Thus, the appellant, the Union of Union of India. They were regarded as British subjects, and entitled in British India to such rights and privileges as were accorded to British nationals in India. Before dealing with the arguments at the Bar, it is convenient to set out the relevant provisions of the Con- stitution. The thesis being merely to establish the existence of rights which were analogous to rights of citi- zenship prior to the enactment of the Constitution, it is unnecessary to enter upon a detailed examination of the con- stitutional developments which took place between August 1947, and the 26th of November, 1949, which culminated in the setting up of the Republic of India by the erstwhile British Indian subjects and the subjects of the Indian States. "The position therefore now in India as well as in England is that a repeal has not the drastic effect which it used to have before the enactment of the Interpretation Act in England or the General Clauses Act Lawyer in High Court Chandigarh this country. So far as the appellant himself is concerned he was at the date of the order made by government in 1961 governed by the All India Services Conduct Rules, 1954. and the other question is whether the High Court Advocates in Chandigarh High Court dealing with a writ petition field by a Government Officer who has been dismissed from Government service is entitled to hold that the conclusion reached by the Government Best Lawyers in High Court Chandigarh regard to his misconduct is not supported by any evidence at all. If a citizen is a national who under the law of the state is entitled to enforce full civil and political rights, 174 British Indian subjects prior to the Constitution had within the territory of British India that quality of rights which would go to make them citizens. At the hearing of this appeal, the learned Attorney-General told us that the appellant was fighting this appeal as a test case not so much to sustain the order of dismissal passed against the respondent is to obtain a decision from this Court on the two points of law raised by it in the present appeal. They exercised civil rights, and such political rights as the form of Government permitted. Held, that on principle, neither findings recorded by the enquiry officer, nor hisrecommendations are binding on the Government and therefore,the constitutional safeguard afforded by Art. Therefore the public servant who allowed the stores to pass out and thus was guilty of abetment of misappropriation could not be prosecuted without sanction as his act in passing out the stores which facilitated the misappropriation was an official act.
|
共0篇回复 每页10篇 页次：1/1
- 1
共0篇回复 每页10篇 页次：1/1
- 1
我要回复
