Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.50 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
69. The Tribunal has itself stated that the charge
does not appear to be very serious but then, at
the same time, it finds that it cannot be
persuaded to accept the argument that it was not
a proved misconduct. The Tribunal has upheld the
findings of the Inquiry Officer that all the
charges against the petitioner are proved. It
has considered the fourth charge, regarding the
complaint by the petitioner to the District
Education Officer, to be of a serious nature.
Considering the manner in which the Tribunal has
arrived at its findings, this Court is
constrained to observe that while the Tribunal
has consciously restricted itself from
Page 56 of 63
HC-NIC Page 56 of 63 Created On Tue Oct 04 00:16:54 IST 2016
C/SCA/8268/2011 CAV JUDGMENT
discussing the defence of the petitioner, on the
ground that it cannot reappreciate evidence, it
has not followed the same principle insofar as
the case of the prosecution / employer is
concerned. It may not be lost sight of that the
Tribunal, in the present case, is factually the
Appellate Forum. An Appellate Forum has much
wider powers and can go into findings of fact
and evidence. This principle of law has been
enunciated by the Supreme Court in
B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India And Others
(supra) in the following terms:
G. Vallikumari vs Andhra Education Society & Ors on 2 February, 2010
39. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily
relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Page 21 of 63
HC-NIC Page 21 of 63 Created On Tue Oct 04 00:16:54 IST 2016
C/SCA/8268/2011 CAV JUDGMENT
G.Vallikumari v. Andhra Education Society And
Others (supra), in support of his submissions
that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is
disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. It
is urged that directions similar to the ones
issued by the Supreme Court in the said judgment
be issued by this Court. The relevant extract of
the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
Coal India Ltd. & Anr vs Mukul Kumar Choudhari & Ors on 24 August, 2009
If evaluated in the
light of the principles of law reiterated by the
Supreme Court in ChairmancumManaging
Director, Coal India Limited And Another v.
Mukul Kumar Choudhuri And Others (supra), and
seen from the eyes of a reasonable man, the
nature of the charges levelled against the
petitioner is not so serious so as to justify
the extreme penalty of removal from service.
Govt. Of A.P. And Ors vs P.Chandra Mouli & Anr on 16 April, 2009
In Government of Andhra Pradesh And Others v.
P.Chandra Mouli And Another (supra), the
Supreme Court has held:
Waryam Singh And Another vs Amarnath And Another on 19 January, 1954
In Waryam Singh and another v. Amarnath and
another (supra), the power of Superintendence
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
arose for discussion. It was held as below:
Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr vs Rajendra Shankar Patil on 23 July, 2010
In Shalini Shyam Shetty And Another v.
Rajendra Shankar Patil (supra), the Supreme
Court has held as below:
Anil Gilurker vs Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank ... on 15 September, 2011
In Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya
Gramin Bank And Another (supra), relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme
Court held that the inquiry must be conducted
according to the principles of natural justice
and the charges should be specific and definite,
giving all the details which form the basis of
the charges. It is further held that no inquiry
can be sustained on vague charges.
A.L.Kalara vs The Project & Equipment Corporation Of ... on 1 May, 1984
In A.L.Kalra v. Project and Equipment
Corporation of India Ltd. (supra), also relied
upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, the
Supreme Court has held thus: