Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.25 seconds)High Court Of Judicature At Bombay Throu ... vs Shashikant S, Patil And Anr on 28 October, 1999
1996 SCC (L&S) 80] , Union of India v. G.
Ganayutham [Union of India v. G. Ganayutham,
(1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806] and
Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana [Bank of
India v. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999) 5 SCC
762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] , High Court of
Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [High Court of
Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil, (2000) 1 SCC 416
: 2000 SCC (L&S) 144] .)
***
The State Of Karnataka vs N.Gangaraj on 14 February, 2020
21. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we
are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a
grave error in interfering with the order passed by the
disciplinary authority dismissing the respondent
delinquent officer from service. The High Court has
erred in reappreciating the entire evidence on record
and thereafter interfering with the findings of fact
recorded by the enquiry officer and accepted by the
disciplinary authority. By interfering with the findings
recorded by the enquiry officer which as such were on
appreciation of evidence on record, the order passed by
the High Court suffers from patent illegality. From the
findings recorded by the enquiry officer recorded
hereinabove, it cannot be said that there was no
evidence at all which may reasonably support the
conclusion that the Delinquent officer is guilty of the
charge."
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
15. The disciplinary authority agreed with the
findings of the enquiry officer and had passed an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed LPA 70/2023 Page 25 of 27
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:09.01.2026
12:14:36
order of punishment. An appeal before the State
Government was also dismissed. Once the evidence
has been accepted by the departmental authority, in
exercise of power of judicial review, the Tribunal or
the High Court could not interfere with the findings
of facts recorded by reappreciating evidence as if the
courts are the appellate authority. We may notice
that the said judgment has not noticed the larger
Bench judgments in S. Sree Rama Rao [State of A.P.
v. S. Sree Rama Rao, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 6 : AIR
1963 SC 1723] and B.C. Chaturvedi [B.C.
Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 :