Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)
Sri Chitta Ranjan Basak vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 9 January, 2012 cites

State Of Karnataka And Ors. vs H. Nagaraj on 23 October, 1997

In State of Karnataka v. H. Nagaraj (supra), which has been relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the Supreme Court has reiterated its view with regard to invocation of the principle of proportionality regarding punishment. It has been held by the Supreme Court that only in a case where punishment was totally irrational in the sense it was in outrageous defiance of logic or 8 moral standards, the said principle could be invoked. Such ingredients are, however, not present in the facts of the instant case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Shatrughan Lal & Anr on 30 July, 1998

In State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal (supra), the Supreme Court has reiterated the principle of law that in any departmental proceeding where charge-sheet is issued and documents which are proposed to be utilized against that person are indicated in the charge-sheet, but copies thereof are not supplied to him in spite of his request, and he is, at the same time, called upon to submit his reply, it cannot be said that an effective opportunity to defend was provided to him. As observed hereinbefore, in the facts of the instant case, none of the grounds in the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner before the appellate authority specifically refer to the point of non supply of relevant documents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 239 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Swapan Kumar Pal vs Achintya Kumar Nayak & Ors on 12 October, 2007

The Supreme Court, in Swapan Kumar Pal's case (supra), has held, inter alia, that in a case of this nature, ordinarily, the High Court ought not to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For exercising of power of judicial review, the Court has a limited role to play. It could interfere only if any legal error has been committed in the decision-making process. It could not enter into the merit of the decision. There is no such legal error which has been committed in the decision-making process by any authority which would warrant an interference of this Court in the facts of the instant case. While passing the impugned order, the appellate authority has actually shown leniency towards the writ petitioner by making a request to the Executive Officer of the Uttar Dinajpur Zilla Parishad to reconsider his previous order and take a sympathetic view by reducing the punishment inflicted upon the writ petitioner and allow him promotion in due course.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 11 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1