Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)Union Of India & Ors vs P.Gunasekaran on 3 November, 2014
"In Union of India Vs. P.Gunasekaran, this Court
held that the High Court in exercise of its power under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India shall not
venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High
Court would determine whether: (a) the enquiry is held by
the competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according
to the procedure prescribed in that behalf: (c) there is
violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting
Page No.16 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Writ Appeal Nos.244 and 245 of 2020
Writ Petition No.14251 of 2020
the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled
themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some
considerations which are extraneous to the evidence and
merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed
themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous
considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is
so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable
person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the
disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the
admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary
authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence
which influenced the findings; (i) the finding of fact is
based on no evidence.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
Though the
scope of interference is very limited, the Apex Court in the case of
B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1995 (6) SCC 749), has held that,
depending upon the charges, the Court is empowered to mould the relief.
1