Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.38 seconds)
The Additional Director General Of ... vs G. Rajendran And The Registrar, ... on 12 October, 2006
cites
Union Of India And Others vs Mohammed Ahmed Ibrahim And Others on 4 December, 1991
5. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that this is a case of no evidence. There is no direct evidence available to prove the guilt of the first respondent, hence, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the orders passed by the authorities. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the fact that evidence recorded behind the back of the first respondent herein were relied on by the authorities to base a conclusion that the charges against him were proved. It is well settled that the evidence recorded in the preliminary enquiry not to be relied on to pass an order adverse to the delinquent and such order is invalid. It is further submitted by the learned Senior counsel that the Criminal Court acquitted the first respondent herein by its Judgment dated 19.10.1990 in S.C. No. 172 of 1990 in respect of the same set of charges and only thereafter, after an inordinate delay, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the first respondent herein, hence, the entire proceedings are vitiated. In such circumstance, the Tribunal is right in re-appreciating the evidence recorded during the enquiry and came to a conclusion that the charges against the first respondent are not proved. To support of the above contentions, the learned Senior counsel relied on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ibrahim ; P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board also a decision of the decision of Division Bench of this Court District Revenue Officer, Erode District, Erode v. R. Palanisamy, Assistant, Erode District Revenue Unit, Erode and Anr. (2006) 1 MLJ 169 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
P.V. Mahadevan vs M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 8 August, 2005
5. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that this is a case of no evidence. There is no direct evidence available to prove the guilt of the first respondent, hence, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the orders passed by the authorities. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the fact that evidence recorded behind the back of the first respondent herein were relied on by the authorities to base a conclusion that the charges against him were proved. It is well settled that the evidence recorded in the preliminary enquiry not to be relied on to pass an order adverse to the delinquent and such order is invalid. It is further submitted by the learned Senior counsel that the Criminal Court acquitted the first respondent herein by its Judgment dated 19.10.1990 in S.C. No. 172 of 1990 in respect of the same set of charges and only thereafter, after an inordinate delay, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the first respondent herein, hence, the entire proceedings are vitiated. In such circumstance, the Tribunal is right in re-appreciating the evidence recorded during the enquiry and came to a conclusion that the charges against the first respondent are not proved. To support of the above contentions, the learned Senior counsel relied on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ibrahim ; P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board also a decision of the decision of Division Bench of this Court District Revenue Officer, Erode District, Erode v. R. Palanisamy, Assistant, Erode District Revenue Unit, Erode and Anr. (2006) 1 MLJ 169 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
High Court Of Judicature At Bombay Throu ... vs Shashikant S, Patil And Anr on 28 October, 1999
In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in The High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil and Anr. wherein it is held that
interference with the decision of departmental authorities can be permitted, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by consideration extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion made by the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion or grounds very similar to the above. However, it cannot be overlooked that the departmental authority is the sole judge of the facts, if the inquiry has been properly conducted. The settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The District Revenue Officer vs R. Palanisamy, Assistant, Erode ... on 24 November, 2005
5. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that this is a case of no evidence. There is no direct evidence available to prove the guilt of the first respondent, hence, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the orders passed by the authorities. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the fact that evidence recorded behind the back of the first respondent herein were relied on by the authorities to base a conclusion that the charges against him were proved. It is well settled that the evidence recorded in the preliminary enquiry not to be relied on to pass an order adverse to the delinquent and such order is invalid. It is further submitted by the learned Senior counsel that the Criminal Court acquitted the first respondent herein by its Judgment dated 19.10.1990 in S.C. No. 172 of 1990 in respect of the same set of charges and only thereafter, after an inordinate delay, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the first respondent herein, hence, the entire proceedings are vitiated. In such circumstance, the Tribunal is right in re-appreciating the evidence recorded during the enquiry and came to a conclusion that the charges against the first respondent are not proved. To support of the above contentions, the learned Senior counsel relied on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ibrahim ; P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board also a decision of the decision of Division Bench of this Court District Revenue Officer, Erode District, Erode v. R. Palanisamy, Assistant, Erode District Revenue Unit, Erode and Anr. (2006) 1 MLJ 169 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
1