Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 58

Existing rules regulate

8.32. There is one more consideration which has weighed with us in dealing with the present problem. We have carefully considered the procedure prescribed by the relevant statutory Central as well as State Rules in relation to disciplinary proceedings, and we are satisfied that the procedure prescribed by these Rules is, on the whole, satisfactory. All the essential ingredients of a fair and just trial are prescribed by the relevant Rules and experience shows that this procedure, which is self-contained, has generally not caused miscarriage of justice. Since this procedure has, on the whole, operated satisfactorily over the years, it would, we think, be unnecessary to make a radical change by recommending the creation of a Service Tribunal.

In this connection, we ought to emphasise that it in a given case, the procedure prescribed by the relevant Rules is not strictly followed, or the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 are contravened, or the requirements prescribed by Article 311 are not complied with in their letter and spirit, the aggrieved public servant is entitled to claim relief under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, (if fundamental rights are given to the Supreme Court). In our opinion, the existing legal and constitutional position affords sufficient protection. We do not, therefore recommend the creation of a separate Service Tribunal.

Structure and Jurisdiction of the Higher Judiciary Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
Powered and driven by Neosys Inc