Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 285 (1.76 seconds)
Documents citing V. Ramana vs A.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors on 5 September, 2005

Chander Lal Ranga vs Union Of India Through on 12 September, 2012

10. In the first instance we may dwell on the issue of the limited judicial review power available with the Tribunal to look into the disciplinary proceedings raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. She argued that the Tribunal should restrain to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute the penalty sitting as an appellate authority. We are conscious of the limited powers of the Tribunal in the exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, we note here the settled position in law on the powers of the Tribunal as to what extent this Tribunal can interfere in the matters of disciplinary proceedings. We went through a catena of judgments of Honourable Supreme Court of India in the matters relating to the Inquiry, and orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities and identified the guiding principles in the subject. Some of the relevant decisions of the Honourable Apex Court referred to by us are viz: B.C. Chaturvedi versus Union of India [1995 (6) SCC 749]; State of Tamil Nadu versus S. Subramanyan, [1996 (7) SCC 509]; State of Tamil Nadu versus K.V. Perumal [1996 (5) SCC 474]; Kuldeep Singh Versus Commissioner of Police and others [1999(2) SCC 10]; Om Kumar versus Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386); V. Ramana versus A.P.S.R.T.C. and Others (AIR-2005-SC-3417); M.V. Bijlani versus Union of India [2006 SCC - 5-88]; State of Rajasthan versus Mohd Ayub Naz [2006 SCC-1-589SC]; Govt. of A.P. versus Nasrullah Khan [2006 STPL (LE) 36733 SC]; Govt. of India Versus George Philip [2007 STPL (LE) 37755 SC]; Union of India Versus S.S. Ahluwalia [2007 SCC (7) 257]; and Moni Shankar versus Union of India [2008 SCC (3) 484]. The common threads running through these decisions of the Honourable Apex Court are that generally the Tribunal should not interfere with the decision of the executive in the matters of disciplinary proceedings unless those are found to be suffering from certain procedural, legal, and statutory improprieties and infirmities. On certain grounds only the Tribunal can closely scrutinize the relevance or irrelevance of facts; presence or absence of some evidence; proportionality or otherwise of the punishment; compliance or otherwise of the audi alteram partem; compliance or otherwise of the wednesbury principle, probability of preponderance doctrine and the like. Some of the guiding principles, we kept in our mind while deciding the present OA, are as follows:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Federation Of Okhla Industrial ... vs Lt Governor Of Delhi And Anr on 4 August, 2018

It is to be borne in mind that the advice of the committee is a step or WP(C) 5217/2017 & connected matters Page 183 of 218 an element in the process of taking a final decision of fixation or revision of the minimum rates of wages. That being the object of seeking the advice the Government should give full and fair opportunity to the committee to advise. The Government must also supply necessary information to the committee to enable it to tender advice. This is so held in V. Ramayya v. State of A.P. (1973) I AWR.241.
Delhi High Court Cites 116 - Cited by 16 - C H Shankar - Full Document

T. Subramaniam vs Presiding Officer I Additional Labour ... on 4 July, 2006

12. The other argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that for the said meagre amount, punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate. Once temporary misappropriation is proved, the amount involved is immaterial. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in (V. Ramana vs. A.P.SRTC and others) (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 338 held that ...it is the responsibility of the conductors to collect correct fare charges from the passengers and deposit the same with the Corporation. They act in fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare. A conductor holds a post of trust. A person guilty of breach of trust should be imposed punishment of removal from service.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Kulasekaran - Full Document

Sathyanarayana Raju K vs Isro on 20 February, 2025

"6. The courts and the tribunals can interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority only when they are satisfied that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges alleged and proved against a delinquent employee and not otherwise. Reference can be made to the decision of this Court in V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC [(2005) 7 SCC 338: 2006 SCC (L&S) 69] wherein it is stated: (SCC p. 348, paras 11-12) "11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

United Bank Of India vs Pradyut Kumar Mitra And Ors on 31 October, 2014

12. Learned Counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner has relied on paragraph 7 of the case of "V. Ramana V. A.P. S.R.T.C. and Ors." reported in (2005) 7 SCC 338 where following the famous Wednesbury case the Supreme Court has laid down that the power of judicial review of an administrative action can be exercised when the order was contrary to law or relevant factors were not considered or irrelevant factors were considered or the decision was one which no reasonable person could have taken. In the instant case we have already observed that no reasonable and prudent person can come to the conclusion on the basis of evidence adduced in the departmental proceeding that the charge of riotous and/or disorderly or indecent behaviour of the writ petitioner is established or that the action of the writ petitioner is prejudicial to the interest of the bank or that the writ petitioner interfered with the work of the bank without any purpose.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R K Bag - Full Document

T. Subramaniam vs Presiding Officer on 4 July, 2006

12. The other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that for the said meagre amount, punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate. Once temporary misappropriation is proved, the amount involved is immaterial. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in (V. Ramana vs. A.P.SRTC and others) (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 338 held that "...it is the responsibility of the conductors to collect correct fare charges from the passengers and deposit the same with the Corporation. They act in fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare. A conductor holds a post of trust. A person guilty of breach of trust should be imposed punishment of removal from service."
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A Kulasekaran - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next