| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1949 SLG 89 1949 SLD 89 1949 PLD 1 |
Privy Council
Privy Council Appeal No. 38 of 1945, from Federal Court of India judgment reported as A I R 1942 F C 3
LORDS THANKERTON, DU PARCQ, OAKASEY, MORFON OF HENRYTON, AND MR. M. R., JAYAKAR
Andrew Clark and B. Mackeniaa-for appellant. (in part I). B. Mackenna-- for Appellant. (in part II). Lem Maclaran-- for
Respondent. (in part II). Solicitors for Appellant (in part 1)-Solicitor, India office. Solicitors for Appellant (in part 2)-Solici
Privy Council Appeal No. 38 of 1945, from Federal Court of India judgment reported as A I R 1942 F C 3
LORDS THANKERTON, DU PARCQ, OAKASEY, MORFON OF HENRYTON, AND MR. M. R., JAYAKAR
Andrew Clark and B. Mackeniaa-for appellant. (in part I). B. Mackenna-- for Appellant. (in part II). Lem Maclaran-- for
Respondent. (in part II). Solicitors for Appellant (in part 1)-Solicitor, India office. Solicitors for Appellant (in part 2)-Solici
NORTH WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE--Appellant
VS
SURAJ NARAIN ANAND--Respondent
Law:
Section:
(a) Government of India Act 1919, S. 96-B-- Amendment of North-West-Frontier Police Rules 1917, Rule 17-1 - Substituting "Deputy Inspector-General of Police" for "Inspector-General of Police" as entitled to dismiss a Sub-Inspector-Invalid and inoperative. Section 96B, Government of India Act, 1919, provided that no person in the civil service of the Crown in India "may be dismissed by any -authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed." Amendment of rules 17-L of North-West Frontier Police Rules 1917, substituting "'Deputy-Inspector-General of Police" for "Inspector-General of Police" as entitled to 'dismiss' a Sub-Inspector appointed by the Inspector-General of Police, held invalid and inoperative. 64 1. A. .40 rel., in which it was held that section 96-B embodied a mandatory statutory restriction which could not be affected by any rules. (b) Government of India Act, 1935, S. 240 (2)-Statutory term of service of crown-mandatory and not permissive. Sub-section (2) of section 240, though it obviously does not apply in the case of dismissal by the Crown itself, is a statutory term of the service of the Crown and is mandatory and not permissive. The dismissal, therefore, of a civil servant by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed, would be unlawful and inoperative under that section. (c) Government of India Act, 1-935, S -243--Right of dismissal whether included in "conditions of service"-S. 241 , sub-sections (2) and (4)-Exception. Apart from consideration whether the context indicates a special significance to the expression "conditions of service", their Lordships were unable, in the absence of any such special significance, to regard provisions, which prescribe the circumstances under which the employer is to be entitled to terminate the service, as otherwise than conditions of the service, whether these provisions were contractual or statutory. A I R 1942 F C 3 Reversed. Police rules printed and published do 29th April, 1938 could not validate dismissal of Sub-Inspector on 25th April, 1938. (d) Practice-Privy Council-Petition to reconsider decision delivered-Entertained when advice to His Majesty had not yet been tendered.…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492