Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.62 seconds)Krushnakant B. Parmar vs Union Of India & Anr on 15 February, 2012
10. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that
admittedly the mother of the applicant was sick as the Disciplinary
Authority has already observed in the impugned order that though his
mother was sick but instead of getting her treated in Rly. Hospital, he
went to Pvt. Hospital, even the medical diagnosis relates to
hipertension/cardiac issue, which was still prevailing. The applicant has
already submitted his leave application and extension of leave
application, within time, but the said fact was never considered by the
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
Disciplinary Authority. The applicant proceeded on leave due to
compelling circumstances as the mother of the applicant was ill and as
such, his absence was not wilful rather it was beyond his control due to
illness of his mother and in this regard, the applicant submitted his
leave application and extension of leave, within time. Similar issue fell
for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, reported in (2012) 3 SCC
178, has held thus:-
M.V. Bijlani vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006
20. The question relating to jurisdiction of the court in judicial
review in a departmental proceeding fell for consideration
before this Court in M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India [(2006) 5 SCC
88 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 919] wherein this Court held: (SCC p. 95,
para 25)
"25. It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is
limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal
in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge.
1