Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.32 seconds)Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
In view of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Ramzan Khan (supra) and B. Karanakar (supra), we would have quashed the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner and remitted the matter to concerned authority to take a fresh decision after supplying him copy of the inquiry report to have his say against it, but since it has been ruled that the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions shall have prospective application and punishment which is already imposed shall not be open to challenge on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice, we are not inclined to accept the petitioner's contention and upset the punishment in view of the fact that order of the disciplinary authority awarding punishment was passed prior to the judgment rendered in those two cases.
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
In the oft-quoted decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India. (1994) 6 SCC 651, the Court making an in-depth study with regard to the scope of judicial review of administrative action, observed--"The judicial power of review is exercised to rein in any unbridled executive functioning. The restraint has two contemporary manifestations. One is the ambit of judicial intervention; the other covers the scope of the Court's ability to quash an administrative decision on its merits. These restraints bear the hallmarks of judicial control over administrative action."
Ranjit Thakur vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1987
9. Besides the circumstances under which 'judicial review' in administrative action can be made as enumerated above, 'proportionality' has been added as another ground of review by the Apex Court in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India. (1987) 4 SCC 611. The Court while quashing the punishment on account of it being 'shockingly disproportionate' observed thus :
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
14. On a comprehensive study of principles of law and the judicial pronouncements referred to above, we would hold that by applying the description of 'irrationality' as decided in CCSU case and the 'proportionality' of punishment as laid down in Ranjit Thakur, B. C. Chaturvedi and P. C. Kakkar (supra), this Court has power to decide whether punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the charge. As it transpires from the copy of the charge-sheet, the petitioner while working as an engineer in the irrigation department committed certain mistakes in the measurement and other works as a result, excess payment was made to the contractor and thus in the opinion of the disciplinary authority, such act amounted to corruption. Neither it was specifically indicated in the charge-sheet nor any finding was recorded by the inquiry officer that the petitioner in order to have monetary gain had intentionally shown excess measurement in the official record to benefit the contractor. Copy of the dismissal order, Annexure-7 would reveal that the disciplinary authority having reproduced the different charges observed the same to have been established in the inquiry and then jumped to the conclusion doubting petitioner's honesty and integrity. He did not hold that the irregularity in the measurement was done with intention to show undue favour to the contractor. He also did not assign any reason as to why it was thought proper to impose major punishment of dismissal from service. On scrutiny of the charge-sheet, findings recorded by the inquiry officer and the consequent order of the disciplinary authority, we are of the opinion that the acts complained of were sheer mistakes or errors on the part of the petitioner and for that no motive could be attributed to him. In this world, one is yet to born infallible. In other words, error is a part of human nature. Even Judges and the professionals having worked for long years with devotion sometimes commit mistakes. It is because of that in justice delivery system, we have different stairs and mistakes committed by one court is corrected by higher court. So, when to err is human and the petitioner is not an exception to it, why should he be imposed with such harsh punishment for his committing certain mistakes/errors which are unintentional? At the most, it can be said that the acts complained of were error of judgment which happened due to lack of proper care. For such acts, he would have been imposed with minor punishment as provided in the Service Rules. In our opinion, therefore, the punishment of dismissal of service inflicted upon him is shoekingly disproportionate to the charge which has affected his right to life and lives of his family members as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. If a sole bread earner loses his job, it makes his life and the lives of all the family members miserable. Financial hardship restrains him to provide education to his children and proper medical care to his old and ailing parents. Unable to bear the agony, a person of weak mind may end his life. So, while awarding punishment, the disciplinary authority should be very cautious and exercises power with restraint. By saying so, it may not be construed that we have held that in no circumstance a public servant can be dismissed from the service even if, he is corrupt, dishonest and has plundered the public exchequer.
Union Of India And Ors vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan on 20 November, 1990
In view of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Ramzan Khan (supra) and B. Karanakar (supra), we would have quashed the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner and remitted the matter to concerned authority to take a fresh decision after supplying him copy of the inquiry report to have his say against it, but since it has been ruled that the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions shall have prospective application and punishment which is already imposed shall not be open to challenge on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice, we are not inclined to accept the petitioner's contention and upset the punishment in view of the fact that order of the disciplinary authority awarding punishment was passed prior to the judgment rendered in those two cases.
Chairman And Managing Director,United ... vs P.C.Kakkar Chairman And Managing ... on 11 February, 2003
13. The view expressed in V. C. Chaturvedi (supra), has been reiterated in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, UCo Bank and Ors. v. P. C. Kakkar, JT 2003 (2) SC 78. The Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment held :