Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India And Ors vs A.N. Saxena on 27 March, 1992
It
rejected the contention following the
decision of this Court in Union of India v.
A.N. Saxena2. While rejecting the said
contention the Bench drew particular attention
to the following observations in A.N. Saxena2:
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 133A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Smt. Ujjam Bai vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 28 April, 1961
Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary
proceedings, if the matter comes to court or tribunal, they
have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges
or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the
case may be. The function of the court/tribunal is one of
judicial review, the parameters of which are repeatedly laid
down by this Court.
T. C. Basappa vs T. Nagappa And Another on 5 May, 1954
4.When the matter went back to the Tribunal, it went into
the correctness of the charges on the basis of the material
produced by the respondent and quashed the charges holding
that the charges do not indicate any corrupt motive or any
culpability on the part of the respondent. We must say, we
are not a little surprised at the course adopted by the
Tribunal. In its order dated September 10, 1992 this Court
specifically drew attention to the observations in A.N.
Saxena2 that the Tribunal ought not to interfere at an
interlocutory stage and yet the Tribunal chose to interfere
on the basis of the material which was yet to be produced at
the inquiry. In short, the Tribunal undertook the inquiry
which ought to be held by the disciplinary authority (or the
inquiry officer appointed by him) and found that the charges
are not true. It may be recalled that the jurisdiction of
the Central Administrative Tribunal is akin to the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Therefore, the principles, norms and the
constraints which apply to the said jurisdiction apply
equally to the Tribunal. If the original application of the
respondent were to be filed in the High Court it would have
been termed, properly speaking, as a writ of prohibition. A
writ of prohibition is issued only when patent lack of
jurisdiction is made out. It is true that a High Court
acting under Article 226 is not bound by the technical rules
applying to the issuance of prerogative writs like
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in United Kingdom, yet
the basic principles and norms applying to the said writs
must be kept in view, as observed by this Court in T. C.
Basappa v. T. Nagappa3. It was observed by Mukherjea, J.
speaking for the Constitution Bench :
Union Of India And Ors vs K. K. Dhawan on 27 January, 1993
13.Before parting with this case, we may refer to the
decision of this Court in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan6.
Following A.N. Saxena2 this Court held that a disciplinary
inquiry can be held even with respect to the
6 (1993) 2 SCC 56
365
conduct of an officer in discharge of his judicial or quasi-
judicial duties. Having said so, this Court set out the
situations in which disciplinary action can be taken with
respect to the judicial/quasi-judicial conduct. Paragraphs
28 and 29 of the judgment will bring out the ratio : (SCC p.
67, paras 28 and 29).