What is meant 690 by equality in this Article is, equality amongst equals. It does not provide for an absolute equality of treatment to all persons in utter disregard Lawyers in High Court Chandigarht every conceivable circums- tance of the differences such as age, sex, education and so on and so forth as may be found amongst people in general. 311(2) of the Constitution, as interpreted by this Court, a Government servant must have a reasonable opportunity not only to prove that he is not guilty of the charges levelled against him, but also to establish that the punishment proposed to be imposed is either not called for or excessive.
” Section 75 ran thus:- “Provided always, and be it enacted, that nothing Senior Advocates In High Court Chandigarh this Act contained shall take away the Power of the said Chandigarh High Court Lawyers of Directors to remove or dismiss any of the officers or servants of the said Company but that the said Court shall and may at all Times have full Liberty to remove or dismiss any of such officers or servants at their will and pleasure. Bimal Kumar Pandit(1). It would be no answer to suggest that every Government servant must have had knowledge of the fact that his past record would necessarily be taken into consideration by the Government in inflicting punishment on him; nor would it be an adequate answer to say that he knew as a matter of fact that the earlier punishments were imposed on him or that he knew of his past record.
We consider that the above argument of learned Counsel for the appellant is correct and must be accepted. 2 it may be extended by the Provincial Government by notification to notices relating to immoveable properties situate wholly or partly in such other areas as may be specified. 36 that nothing in this Act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend to preclude or take away the power of the Court of Directors of the said Company from removing or recalling any of the officers or servants of the said Company, but that the said Court shall and may at all times have full liberty , to remove, recall, or dismiss any of such officers or servants, at their will and pleasure in the like manner as if this Act had not been passed Section 35 made it lawful to and for the King’s Majesty his heirs and successors, by any writing or instrument under him or their sign manual, countersigned by the President of the Board of Commissioners for the affairs of India, to remove or recall any person or person holding any office, employment, or commission, civil or military, under the said United Company 756 in India for the time being.
Section 74 make it lawful “for His Majesty by any Writing under His Sign Manual,countersigned by the President of the said Board of Commissioners, to remove or dismiss any person holding any office, employment or commission, civil or military, under the said Company in India, and to vacate any Appointment or Commission of any person to any such office or employment. In this connection it will be helpful to examine the use of the words dismissal and removal Top Lawyers in High Court Chandigarh the earlier Constitution Acts.
If the grounds are not given Senior Lawyers In Chandigarh High Court the notice, it would be well nigh impossible for him to predicate what is operating on the mind of the authority concerned in proposing a particular punishment: he would not be in a position to explain why he does not deserve any punishment at all or that the punishment proposed is excessive. But this Act did not apply to the suit filed by the trustees. (1) The total expenditure incurred, or to be incurred, by the Government on eradicating or other ancillary or subsidiary operations in the kans area, shall be equitably apportioned by the Reclamation Board between the several holders of, or persons having interest in the lands comprised in the Kans area.
The said opportunity is to be a reasonable opportunity and, therefore, it is necessary that the Government servant must be told of the grounds on which it is proposed to take such action: see the decision of this Court in the State of Assam v. 14 provides is that the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. ” The appellant’s Counsel is not in a position to submit that there is evidence on the record which would satisfy the Chandigarh High Court Divorce Lawyers that the accused has “proved the contrary”, that is, that he had not committed the offence with which he was charged.
The suit was filed by the trustees in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad and our attention has not been invited to any notification issued by the appropriate Provincial Government extending the Act to notices relating to immovable properties in areas outside Greater Bombay. 2 applies only to notices in res- pect of suits or proceedings which relate to immoveable property situate wholly or partly in Greater Bombay. In the Charter Act of 1833, similar provisions were enacted in ss.
The Charter Act of 1793 mentions in s. If the proposed punishment was mainly based upon the previous record of a Government servant and that was not disclosed in the notice, it would mean that the main reason for the proposed punishment was withheld from the knowledge of the Government servant.