Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.33 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
In this
regard Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi vs.
Union of India &Anr.. reported in 1996 AIR 484 has held as under:'
"Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the
manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is
meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to
ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily
correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on
charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is
concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent
officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or
whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the
findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority
entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and
authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding
must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of
Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein,
apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that
evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary
authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the
charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not
act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at
its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal
may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the
delinquent officer in a manner in a manner inconsistent with the rules
of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the
mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the
disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or
O.A. No.621 of 2016
12
finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the
Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and
mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
Union Of India & Ors vs P.Gunasekaran on 3 November, 2014
In the case of Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekhran 2015 (2) SCC
page 610, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:'
".........In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot
act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its
powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not
venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only
see whether:
1