Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 61 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Police And Ors vs Syed Hussain on 25 January, 2006

G.Jayakumar vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 13 February, 2012

The Supreme Court in 2009 (7) SCC 248 (cited supra) relied on its earlier decision reported in 2006 (3) SCC 173 = 2006 SCC (L & S) 503 (Commr. Of Police Vs. Syed Hussain), in which it is laid down that it is one thing to say that the order passed by the statutory authority is wholly arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and thus liable to be set aside, but is another thing to say that the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by such authority should not ordinarily be interfered with by a superior Court while exercising the power of judicial review unless one or the other ground upon which and on the basis whereof the power of judicial review can be exercised, exists.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 3 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

V.Thiruvengadam vs The Special Commissioner And on 28 April, 2011

21. Normally, this Court would not interfere with the proportionality of the quantum of punishment and it is for the competent authority to decide in accordance with the rules. However, it is seen from the material documents that the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority on the preponderance of probabilities and also presumptions and assumptions to impose the punishment of removal from service is harsh and excessive. The power of this Court to interfere with the proportionality of the quantum of punishment has been time and again considered by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, one of which being the case of Commissioner of Police v. Syed Hussain, referred to above, wherein it has been categorically held that the doctrine of proportionality has to be applied in appropriate cases, and another being the case of B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India, 1995 (6) SCC 749, in which it is held that if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks to the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary authority/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. Therefore, when the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority is shockingly disproportionate to the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court while giving due consideration, can certainly interfere with such punishment and remand the matter to the authority to decide what appropriate punishment could be imposed on the delinquent.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

C.Elumalai vs The Secretary To The Government Of Tamil ... on 1 November, 2010

In Commr. of Police v. Syed Hussain2, this Court observed that: (SCC pp. 176-77, paras 10 & 13) 10. It is one thing to say that order passed by the statutory authority is wholly arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and thus liable to be set aside, but it is another thing to say that the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by such authority should not ordinarily be interfered with by a superior court while exercising its power of judicial review unless one or the other ground upon which and on the basis whereof the power of judicial review can be exercised, exists.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

Binod Kumar Malakar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 27 April, 2009

He is further right in relying the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Syed Hussain (supra). That was a case where the authorities had inflicted punishment of dismissal of service in a situation where he had stood surety for bail in favour of the accused persons. The High Court interfered with the order and substituted the same by the punishment of 8 compulsory retirement from service, inter alia, on the ground that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of the proven charges. Completely disagreeing with the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court restored the order of dismissal from service. Paragraphs 14 to 16 of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S K Katriar - Full Document

Kasu Rayapa Reddy, vs The State Of A.P. on 14 July, 2021

"In exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India an order of administrative authority, more particularly made in exercise of quasi-judicial power, can be tested and writ court may interfere only if Court comes to a conclusion that there is error of jurisdiction or decision is perverse. Writ Court does not sit as appellate authority over such decision. Thus, judicial review is confined to jurisdictional error and perversity of decision. The scope of judicial review is confined to decision making process and not the decision per se.' The learned single Judge also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Police v. Syed Hussain5, dealing with scope of judicial review of administrative action, wherein Supreme Court held as under:
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - M S Murthy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next