Latest news with #1975Rules
Hindustan Times
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Can't infringe upon competent authority's right to prematurely retire an employee: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana high court has refused to interfere with the Punjab director general of police's (DGP) 2022 order of prematurely retiring an assistant sub-inspector, stating that it cannot infringe upon a competent authority's right. The bench of justice Jagmohan Bansal held that the appropriate authority may order to prematurely retire any officer if it is in the public interest. However, conditions, as spelt in the service rules, must be complied with. As per the Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975, the order should be passed by the appropriate authority, the authority must be of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, the employee should be given prior notice in writing, the employee must have completed 25 years of qualifying service or attained 55 years of age and in the absence of three months' notice, employee would be entitled to three months' salary. 'The power to prematurely retire is an absolute right of the appropriate authority. The petitioner, by the date of passing impugned order, had already completed 25 years of service. Thus, it is evident that the respondent complied with all the attributes of Rule 3 of 1975 Rules, except service of three months' notice. The petitioner is entitled to a salary of three months in the absence of notice,' it said while dismissing the plea. The petition was from one Sukhpal Singh from Ludhiana, who was prematurely retired in April 2020 by the Ludhiana police commissioner. Subsequently, the appeal went up to the DGP level but was dismissed in 2022. In the plea, he had argued that the order was passed in a mechanical manner and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The government counsel had submitted that if notice is not served upon the officer, he is entitled to three months' salary. The petitioner was having very bad service record, thus, under compelled circumstances, he was prematurely retired. The court found that show-cause notice was not served upon him, but the record suggests that his entire service record was considered. It was found that out of his 27 years and 11 months service, his 10 years' service was forfeited. He was awarded four major punishments and there are 17 bad entries. He remained absent from duty for 793 days. Now, he is facing criminal proceedings in an attempt-to-murder case registered in January 2020.
Hindustan Times
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC to hear plea against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey's remarks on judiciary next week
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear next week a petition seeking contempt of court action against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament (MP) Nishikant Dubey for his controversial comments on the apex court and the Chief Justice of India (CJI). A bench headed by justice Bhushan R Gavai, who is in line to be the next CJI, directed the petition to be listed next week after advocate Narendra Mishra mentioned the case. Advocate Mishra said that while letters are pending with Attorney General for seeking his consent to initiate criminal contempt against Dubey, no action was forthcoming even as the statements against the CJI and the top court were getting widely circulated. Incidentally, Mishra had approached the justice Gavai-led bench on Monday with the same request when he was asked to approach AG for consent. Two lawyers — Anas Tanwir and Shiv Kumar Tripathi — had sought AG's consent on Saturday soon after Dubey made the comments while speaking to news agencies. For filing any petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the Supreme Court, Section 15(1)(b) of the 1971 Act along with the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 or the 1975 Rules require prior consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. The relevant rule - Rule 3(c) of the 1975 Rules provides that either the court can take it up suo motu or a petition can be maintained directly by the AG or SG or by a private person after taking AG/SG consent. Dubey on Saturday triggered a row, saying, 'CJI Sanjiv Khanna is responsible for the civil wars taking place in the country' and that 'the Supreme Court is taking the country towards anarchy'. His outrage was directed against the apex court's April 8 decision in a petition filed by Tamil Nadu government against the action of TN Governor RN Ravi to refer 10 bills for Presidental assent after it was re-validated by the legislature for a second time. The top court found the governor's action to be unconstitutional and set timelines asking the Governor to decide on bills within three months. The court also ordered that if bills are referred to President for assent, the same should be decided by the latter in three months. Dubey cited Article 368 of the Constitution and said that law-making is the job of Parliament while the Supreme Court is only meant to interpret laws. Dubey also cast aspersion on the impartiality of the judiciary by questioning the court's critical observations on the 2025 Waqf Amendment Act's dilution of the 'Waqf by user' provision. Advocate Mishra said, 'The comments (of Dubey) are hurting the court, and the government is not taking any action. The video is viral all over the country and there is no action on the letters written to Attorney General. Mishra also sought orders directing the removal of videos of Dubey's comments from social media platforms. Advocate Tanwir alleged that Dubey's remarks were 'grossly scandalous', 'misleading' and aimed at lowering the dignity and authority of the court. He said, 'These remarks are not only factually incorrect but are also intended to scandalise the Supreme Court, erode public trust, and incite communal distrust in judiciary's impartiality, all of which clearly fall within the meaning of criminal contempt as defined under section 2(c)(i) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.' Soon after Dubey's remarks courted controversy, BJP president JP Nadda distanced himself from the comments and warned the Jharkhand MP from further making such statements. Earlier, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar had described Article 142 of the Constitution – which gives Supreme Court extraordinary powers to do complete justice – as a 'nuclear weapon' used by the judiciary against democratic forces. He also criticised the top court for acting as 'super Parliament' for its directions in the TN case.
