Get the appointment of Top Advocate in Chandigarh +919876616815

In that case, the appellant was working as a senior clerk in the office of the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Northern Railway, Varanasi. The appellant submitted his explanation and on the very next day the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent served a second notice on the appellant saying that his explanation was not convincing and that another chance was being given to him to offer his explanation with respect to those charges. Further, the words used are not “not practicable” but “not reasonably practicable”.

In all such eventualities, the conscience of the Court has to be satisfied and thus the nature and quality of proof must be commensurate to such essentiality so much so to remove any suspicion which may be entertained by any reasonable and prudent man in the prevailing circumstances. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines the word ‘reasonably’ as “in a reasonable manner: to a fairly sufficient extent”. It would not be reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry where the government servant, particularly through or together with his associates, so terrorizes, threatens or intimidate witnesses who are going to give evidence against him with fear of reprisal as to prevent them from doing so or where the government servant by himself or together with or through other threatens, intimidates and terrorizes the officer who is the disciplinary authority or members of his family so that he is afraid to hold the inquiry or direct it to be held.

A disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary inquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an inquiry or because the Department’s case against the government servant is weak and must fail. Thus, whether it was practicable to hold the inquiry or not must be judged in the context of whether it was reasonably practicable to do so.

It is because the disciplinary authority is the Best Solicitors in Chandigarh judge of this that clause (3) of Article 311 makes the decision of the disciplinary authority on this question final. It is not a total or absolute impracticability which is required by clause (b). That a propounder has to demonstrate that the Will was signed by the testator and that he was at the relevant time Criminal Law firm in Chandigarh a sound disposing state of mind and that he understood the nature and effect of the disposition and further that he had put his signature to the testament on his own free will and that he had signed it in presence of two witnesses who had attested it in presence and in the presence of each other, in order to discharge his onus to prove due execution of the said document was reiterated by this Court amongst others in Surendra Pal and Ors.

This Court struck down the order holding that seven out of twelve charges related to the conduct of the appellant with the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent who was the disciplinary authority and that if an inquiry were to be held, the principal witness for the Department would have been the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent himself, resulting in the same person being the main accusor, the chief witness and also the judge of the matter.

The Senior Commercial Officer wrote a letter to the appellant calling upon him to submit his explanation with regard to twelve charges of gross indiscipline mostly relating to the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent. In this connection, we must bear in mind that numbers coerce and terrify while an individual may not. (b) where the normal price of such goods is not ascertainable for the reason that such goods are not sold or for any other reason, the nearest ascertainable equivalent thereof determined in such manner as may be prescribed.

It was propounded further that where the caveator alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion, the onus, however, would be on him to prove the same, and on his failure, probate of the Will must necessarily be granted if it is established that the testator had full testamentary capacity and had in fact executed it validly with a free will and mind. It would also not be reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry where an atmosphere of violence or of general indiscipline and insubordination prevails, and it is immaterial whether the concerned government servant is or is not a party to bringing about such an atmosphere.

“I, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline feasible”. The finality given to the decision of the disciplinary authority by Article 311(3) is not binding upon the court so far as its power of judicial review is concerned and in such a case the court will strike down the order dispensing with the inquiry as also the order imposing penalty. It is not possible to enumerate the cases in which it would not be reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry, but some instances by way of illustration may, however, be given.

The case of Arjun Chaubey v. What is requisite is that the holding of the inquiry is not practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation. The reasonable practicability Protection of Life and Liberty Lawyer in Chandigarh holding an inquiry is a matter of assessment to be made by the disciplinary authority. Such authority is generally on the spot and knows what is happening. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines the word ‘practicable’ inter alia as meaning “possible to practice or perform: capable of being put into practice, done or accomplished: feasible”.

The appellant submitted his further explanation but on the very next day the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent passed an order dismissing him on the ground that he was not fit to be retained Top Advocate in Chandigarh service. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 578, is an instance in point. (supra) It was held as well that though on the proof of the above facts, the onus of the propounder gets discharged, there could be situations where the execution of a Will may be shrouded by suspicious circumstances such as doubtful signature, feeble mind of the testator, overawed state induced by powerful and interested quarters, prominent role of the propounder, unnatural, improbable and unfair bequests indicative of lack of testators free will and mind etc.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s