Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Satpal @ Chatrapal And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 March, 2023

Shivdas Vithu Pednekar vs State Of Goa Thr. Chief Secretary And 3 ... on 12 September, 2024

In Chatrapal Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another (supra) Their Lordships observed that it is trite law that ordinarily the findings recorded by the inquiry officer should not be interfered with by the appellate authority or by the writ court except when the finding is perverse. The scope of interference by the Court in the findings recorded by the inquiry officer is elaborated. However, as the order of compulsory retirement is not under challenge, it is not open for us to go into the question of the perversity of the finding recorded by the inquiry officer. This aspect we had to briefly touch as the learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to justify the compelling reason for the petitioner's absenteeism. We therefore proceed on the footing that the order of compulsory retirement dated 17.10.2019 has attained finality.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - M S Karnik - Full Document

Vinod Kumar Rajak vs M/O Railways on 26 July, 2024

Thus, keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Chatrapal (supra) as also our order passed in the case of G.P. Khutey (supra), the orders passed by all the authorities viz; Disciplinary Authority, Revisionary Authority and Appellate Authority are not sustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside. We order accordingly. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration in view of the observations made by us in the preceding paragraphs. No order as to costs.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar Jha vs Central Railside Warehouse Company ... on 12 November, 2024

21. There can be no quarrel on the legal proposition that power of judicial review of Constitutional Courts is the valuation of decision making process and not the merits of the decision. Court would not interfere with findings of fact arrived at in the departmental inquiry proceedings except in case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man can act reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at the in the inquiry proceedings, the same has to be sustained. [Ref. Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612; Union of India and Others v. Subrata Nath, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1617; Indian Oil Corporation and Others v. Ajit Kumar Singh and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 647; and Chatrapal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 146].
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Rambir Singh vs Uoi And Ors on 2 May, 2025

In the case of Chatrapal vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in SLP(C) No.11975/2019, decided on 15.02.2024, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the earlier legal position that under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the conclusion in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law. The writ court would also not go into the adequacy of the evidence or even reliability of the evidence. In writ jurisdiction, the Court shall also not interfere to correct the error of fact, howsoever grave it may appear to be; nor would it go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document
1   2 Next