Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.29 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Shri Udaysingh S/O Ganpatrao ... on 9 April, 1997
13. It is a settled proposition of law that the Courts under Article 226
have limited jurisdiction of judicial review. This Court, cannot, under Art.
226 sit as an Appellate Court over the findings of the enquiry officers based
on sufficient material on record to prove the guilt of the petitioners. It is not
the decision, but the decision making process which is subject matter of
judicial review. The limited jurisdiction this Court enjoys has been spelt out
in High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Udaysingh
s/o Ganpatrao Naik Nimbalkar & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2286; Government of
Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, AIR 2006 SC 1214; and
Union of India & Ors. v. Manab Kumar Guha, (2011) 11 SCC 535.
Govt. Of A.P. & Ors vs Mohd. Narsullah Khan on 31 January, 2006
13. It is a settled proposition of law that the Courts under Article 226
have limited jurisdiction of judicial review. This Court, cannot, under Art.
226 sit as an Appellate Court over the findings of the enquiry officers based
on sufficient material on record to prove the guilt of the petitioners. It is not
the decision, but the decision making process which is subject matter of
judicial review. The limited jurisdiction this Court enjoys has been spelt out
in High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Udaysingh
s/o Ganpatrao Naik Nimbalkar & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2286; Government of
Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, AIR 2006 SC 1214; and
Union of India & Ors. v. Manab Kumar Guha, (2011) 11 SCC 535.
Union Of India & Ors vs Manab Kumar Guha on 28 February, 2011
13. It is a settled proposition of law that the Courts under Article 226
have limited jurisdiction of judicial review. This Court, cannot, under Art.
226 sit as an Appellate Court over the findings of the enquiry officers based
on sufficient material on record to prove the guilt of the petitioners. It is not
the decision, but the decision making process which is subject matter of
judicial review. The limited jurisdiction this Court enjoys has been spelt out
in High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Udaysingh
s/o Ganpatrao Naik Nimbalkar & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2286; Government of
Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, AIR 2006 SC 1214; and
Union of India & Ors. v. Manab Kumar Guha, (2011) 11 SCC 535.
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs S. Sree Rama Rao on 10 April, 1963
In the
earlier decision of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Sree Rama Rao [1964 ] 3
SCR 25, the Supreme Court held as under:-
State Of Haryana And Anr. vs Rattan Singh on 22 March, 1977
19. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the CCTV
footage cannot be relied upon since it was not proved in accordance with
law. It is well known that rules of evidence are inapplicable to departmental
enquiries. In those proceedings, materials on record, relevant to the fact in
hand which are the basis of findings of enquiry officer. It was observed in
State Of Haryana And Anr. vs Rattan Singh AIR 1977 SC 1512 that:
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
11. It is further argued that in matters where there is sufficient evidence
for the Disciplinary Authority to return a finding of proof of misconduct,
this court lacks jurisdiction in judicial review. Reliance is placed on the
W.P.(C) Nos.6289/2013 and 9219/2014 Page 6
judgment of Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India AIR
1996 SC 484 (para -12) and on the judgment in the case of High Court of
Judicature at Bombay vs. Uday Singh through its Registrar AIR 1997 SCC
2286.
The Management Of Coimbatore District ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 3 November, 2004
24. This principle has also been discussed in the case of Coimbatore
District Central Cooperative Bank v. Coimbatore District Central
Cooperative Bank Employees Assn. and Anr.; (2007)4 SCC 669. It was
observed as follows:
Coal India Ltd. & Anr vs Mukul Kumar Choudhari & Ors on 24 August, 2009
19. de Smith states that "proportionality" involves "balancing
test" and "necessity test". Whereas the former (balancing test)
permits scrutiny of excessive onerous penalties or infringement
of rights or interests and a manifest imbalance of relevant
considerations, the latter (necessity test) requires infringement
of human rights to the least restrictive alternative. [Judicial
Review of Administrative Action (1995), pp. 601-05, para
13.085; see also Wade & Forsyth: Administrative Law (2005),
p. 366.] The Apex Court also considered the said principle in
detail in the case of Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal
India Limited and Anr. Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and
Ors.; AIR2010SC75 laying down the principles for the
applicability of such doctrine in administrative law in England
as well as in India wherein the reliance was placed in the
decision of Union of India and Anr. v. G. Ganayutham (1997)
7 SCC 463."