BRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEM Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
LAWS(SC)-2016-8-40
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
August 26,2016
Brajendra Singh Yambem
Appellant
VERSUS
Union Of India And Anr.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF MADRAS VS. G SUNDARAM [REFERRED TO]SAMPAT PRAKASH S K B REHMAN S NIZAMUDDIN VS. STATE OF FAMMU AND KASHMIR:STATE OF FAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
RAILWAY BOARD REPRESENTING THE UNION OF INDIA VS. NIRANJAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
B S YADAV PRITPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA:STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
D V KAPOOR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. KEWAL KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. YASHWANT TRIMBAK [OVERRULED]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. KRISHNA PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
BABU VERGHESE VS. BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
P.S.K. SINGARAVELU VS. THE SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-12-75] [REFERRED TO]PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST VS. ARVIND MOHAN SAHAY [LAWS(CAL)-2020-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
C.MALLEM KONDAIAH VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2018-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANGLAL AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2024-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GOA VS. TARUNJIT TEJPAL [LAWS(BOM)-2022-4-276] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV SURI VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(SC)-2021-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
SABITA DEBBARMA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2021-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
ASHISH KUMAR DAS VS. NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY [LAWS(MEGH)-2017-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
BALJIT SINGH HANDA VS. PUNJAB & SIND BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2021-2-35] [REFERRED TO]
NEYAZ AHMAD DAUDI VS. STATE OF U P THRU PRIN SECY EDUCATION AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-233] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL ARORA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-10-207] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KASHINATH PAWAR VS. NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-71] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CHOUHAN (BARET) VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
SATRA PLAZA PREMISES CO-OP.SOC.LTD. VS. NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2023-5-32] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-10-133] [REFERRED TO]
UDAY PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-7-43] [REFERRED TO]
MARUBOYINA RAMANJAEYULU VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2020-12-74] [REFERRED TO]
A RAJASEKARAN VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-185] [REFERRED TO]
SABITA DEBBARMA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2023-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI BAVARIA VS. STATE OF M P & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-10-208] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The present appeals arise out of the common impugned judgment and order dated 05.08.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in Writ Appeal Nos. 39 and 40 of 2011, whereby the judgment and order dated 01.09.2010 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Gauhati, Imphal Bench in W.P. (C) Nos. 904 of 2008 and 264 of 2010 was set aside.
(3.)The necessary facts required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder: The appellant was serving as a regular Commandant of 61st Battalion, CRPF and at the time of incidents, was posted at Mantripukhri, Imphal. He is alleged to be involved in two cases. The first case, i.e. Civil Appeal arising out of the SLP (C) No. 30907 of 2013 relates to missing of arms and ammunition. The second case, i.e. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10092 of 2014 relates to the alleged supply of contraband ganja, by 11 CRPF personnel posted in the unit of the appellant. Between 03.06.1995 and 05.07.1995, one AK -47 rifle with 3 magazines and 90 rounds of 7.62 ammunition issued in the name of one Lance Naik Man Bahadur, who was posted at the same battalion of which the appellant was the commandant went missing. According to the respondents, the loss occurred as a result of the verbal orders issued by the appellant, which action amounted to a violation of Rules 3(1)(i) & (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the "CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964").
(2.)The present appeals arise out of the common impugned judgment and order dated 05.08.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in Writ Appeal Nos. 39 and 40 of 2011, whereby the judgment and order dated 01.09.2010 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Gauhati, Imphal Bench in W.P. (C) Nos. 904 of 2008 and 264 of 2010 was set aside.
(3.)The necessary facts required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder: The appellant was serving as a regular Commandant of 61st Battalion, CRPF and at the time of incidents, was posted at Mantripukhri, Imphal. He is alleged to be involved in two cases. The first case, i.e. Civil Appeal arising out of the SLP (C) No. 30907 of 2013 relates to missing of arms and ammunition. The second case, i.e. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10092 of 2014 relates to the alleged supply of contraband ganja, by 11 CRPF personnel posted in the unit of the appellant. Between 03.06.1995 and 05.07.1995, one AK -47 rifle with 3 magazines and 90 rounds of 7.62 ammunition issued in the name of one Lance Naik Man Bahadur, who was posted at the same battalion of which the appellant was the commandant went missing. According to the respondents, the loss occurred as a result of the verbal orders issued by the appellant, which action amounted to a violation of Rules 3(1)(i) & (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the "CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964").
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.