V.Senthurvelan vs The High Court Of Judicature At Madras on 11 September, 2009
9.Applying the ratio laid down by the Honourable Division Bench, this Court is of the view that the order impugned will have to be modified.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)Jagdish Singh vs Punjab Engineering College & Ors on 14 May, 2009
11.In the recent judgment, it JAGDISH SINGH vs. PUNJAB ENGINEERING COLLEGE AND OTHERS [(2009) 7 SCC 301], the Honourable Apex Court, considering the case of a sweeper, who was dismissed from service on account of his absence on four spells totalling to fifteen days in all in two months to sort out his daughter's problem with her-in-laws and considering the fact that it is not a case of habitual absenteeism and the major punishment of dismissal from service is shocking the consciousness of the Court, has observed and held as follows: "8. The instant case is not a case of habitual absenteeism. The appellant seems to have a good track record from the date he joined service as a sweeper. In his long career of service, he remained absent for fifteen days on four occasions in the months of February and March 2004. This was primarily to sort out the problem of his daughter with her in-laws. The filial bondage and the emotional attachment might have come in his way to apply and obtain leave from the employer. The misconduct that is alleged, in our view, would definitely amount to violation of discipline that is expected of an employee to maintain in the establishment, but may not fit into the category of gross violation of discipline. We hasten to add, if it were to be habitual absenteeism, we would not have ventured to entertain this appeal.
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
"14....... In the said judgment the Supreme Court instead of remanding the matter to the department, following the earlier decision reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 : AIR 1996 SC 484 (B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India) imposed punishment by itself. In AIR 1996 SC 484, in para 18 it is held thus, "18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty.
J.B.J. Alexander vs The Secretary To Government on 29 April, 2010
8.In J.B.J.ALEXANDER vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT dated 29.04.2010, the learned single Judge by making reliance upon the Honourable Apex Court in B.C.CHATURVEDI vs. UNION OF INDIA [AIR 1996 SC 484] has held as follows:
V. Ramana vs A.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors on 5 September, 2005
If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/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." (Emphasis supplied)
The same is the view taken by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2005) 7 SCC 338 (V.Ramana v. A.P.SRTC).
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1