B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
A Three-Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India &
Ors., [1995] 6 SCC 749, laid down as under :-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)Colour-Chem Limited vs A.L. Alaspurkar & Ors on 5 February, 1998
Another Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Colour-Chem Ltd. v. Alaspurkar
and Others, [1998] 3 SCC 192, has also laid down the same proposition and
held that if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the
charges held proved against the employee, it will be open to the Court to
interfere.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh ... vs Om Prakash Agarwal And Anr. on 12 October, 1999
It was in the background of these circumstances that the High Court
exercised its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and
interfered with the quantum of punishment inflicted by the Disciplinary
Authority. It may be that the order of dismissal was held to be valid and
proper by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal but the Tribunal also
overlooked the fact that though sufficient evidence could have been
collected at the spot to indicate that the passengers to whom tickets were
issued by the respondent had boarded the Bus at the "High Court" and not at
"Zero Road" but this was not done. It was a Bus plied in the City itself
and, therefore, the passengers, who were available in the Bus, being local
passengers, could have been approached at the spot for stating whether they
had boarded the Bus at the "High Court" or at "Zero Road". Learned counsel
for the appellants has placed reliance upon an unreported decision of this
Court in Civil Appeal No. 9754 of 1995, arising out of SLP(C) No. 1960 of
1994 (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. v. Om Prakash Pandey),
in which the order of the High Court, by which interference was made with
the punishment.inflicted upon the delinquent employee of the Corporation,
was set aside. This case is clearly distinguish-able on the ground that a
number of passengers were allowed to travel without tickets and, therefore,
the misconduct imputed to the employee was serious. This is not the case
here as the respondent had issued tickets to all the passengers, who were
found travelling in the Bus, but the dispute was only with regard to the
spot or place at which they had boarded the Bus. To put it differently, the
dispute was whether they had boarded the Bus at "Zero Road" or at the "High
Court". In these circumstances, the High Court was justified in interfering
with the quantum of punishment.
1