January 1, 2026 11:18 pm

HELD showing undue favour to a party under the guise of passing judicial orders is the worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct. Appeal of delinquent judicial officer – dismissed.

Bysclaw

May 15, 2022

Service Matters

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

By sclaw

Related Post

Service Law — Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Rules, 2001 — Rule 18(b) — Recruitment: Disqualification — Second Marriage — Rule 18(b) disqualifies a person who, having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with another person from appointment to the Force — Respondent, a CISF Constable, was dismissed from service for marrying a second time while his first marriage subsisted, violating Rule 18(b) — Held, the rule is a service condition intended to maintain discipline, public confidence, and integrity in the Force, and is not a moral censure — The rule is clear and mandatory, and the maxim “dura lex sed lex” (the law is hard, but it is the law) applies — The statutory rule prescribing penal consequences must be strictly construed — Dismissal upheld. (Paras 2, 3, 7, 9)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw

Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 — Section 34(4) — Transfer of proceedings and effect of orders — Section 34(4) provides that any order made by the High Court at Patna before the appointed day in certain proceedings, shall for all purposes have effect not only as an order of the High Court at Patna but also as an order made by the High Court of Jharkhand — This deeming provision ensures continuity of judicial authority and mandates that judgments (like Nagendra Sahani) rendered by the Patna High Court before the reorganization, concerning employees subsequently allocated to Jharkhand (Successor State), must be treated as binding precedent by the High Court of Jharkhand. (Paras 17, 19, 20, 21, 31)

Dec 17, 2025 sclaw

Categories

Archives

You missed

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 read with 34, 148, and 341 — Murder —Appeal against reversal of acquittal — Appellate court’s duty in overturning acquittal — Trial court’s acquittal based on “imaginary and illusionary reasons” and misappreciation of evidence, including attributing undue significance to minor contradictions and perceived manipulation of delayed FIR submission, justifies reversal by High Court. (Paras 31, 45, 46, 52)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

Service Law — Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Rules, 2001 — Rule 18(b) — Recruitment: Disqualification — Second Marriage — Rule 18(b) disqualifies a person who, having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with another person from appointment to the Force — Respondent, a CISF Constable, was dismissed from service for marrying a second time while his first marriage subsisted, violating Rule 18(b) — Held, the rule is a service condition intended to maintain discipline, public confidence, and integrity in the Force, and is not a moral censure — The rule is clear and mandatory, and the maxim “dura lex sed lex” (the law is hard, but it is the law) applies — The statutory rule prescribing penal consequences must be strictly construed — Dismissal upheld. (Paras 2, 3, 7, 9)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 366A, 372, 373, 34 — Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA) — Section 3, 4, 5, 6 — Child Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation — Evidence of Minor Victim — Appreciation of Evidence — Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and High Court regarding conviction for procuring and sexually exploiting a minor victim upheld — Prosecution case substantially corroborated by testimony of minor victim (PW-13), decoy witness (PW-8), independent witness (PW-12), and recovery of incriminating articles — Minor contradictions in testimony (e.g., about forcible sexual intercourse causing injury, or apartment topography) do not vitiate the prosecution case, as the consistent version of the victim establishes procurement for sexual exploitation. (Paras 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

Bail Declined Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439(2) — Cancellation of Bail — Annulment of Bail — Distinction — Cancellation of bail is generally based on supervening circumstances and post-bail misconduct; Annulment of an order granting bail is warranted when the order is vitiated by perversity, illegality, arbitrariness, or non-application of mind — High Court granted bail ignoring prior cancellation of bail due to commission of murder by accused (while on bail) of a key witness in the first case, and failed to consider the gravity of offenses (including under SC/ST (POA) Act) and threat to fair trial — Such omissions and reliance on irrelevant considerations (existence of civil dispute) render the bail order perverse and unsustainable, justifying annulment by the Supreme Court. (Paras 12, 12.1, 12.2, 12.4, 12.5)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw