Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)
Shri B.D. Bansal vs Union Of India on 8 March, 2011 cites

Man Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 1 May, 2008

The Commission has referred to the role of other persons involved in the case, i.e., AE/JE and incharge of work in question cannot be absolved from their responsibility as Chajja was unstable and they could have detected the mistake during the course of the execution before casting since checking the stability did not involve any specialized engineering knowledge. Furthermore, with regard to the CPWD Circular dated 9.3.1998 referred to by the Commission, the work in question falls within the job responsibility of AE/JE having regard to estimate cost of work. The applicant has felt aggrieved that these persons have been let off leniently and the applicant has been meted out with discriminatory treatment, which will render the punishment awarded to the applicant as arbitrary and unfair as compared to his subordinates. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case of Man Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, (2008) 12 SCC 331 in this regard. It has been held in this case that State action, whether legislative, quasi-judicial or administrative, is subject to judicial review on these grounds, for the reason that they are opposed to concept of fairness, which in turn is a facet of equality. Administrative action therefore has to be just and reasonable. We find force in the contention of the applicant, especially having regard to the observations made by the Commission as referred to above. This point was specifically taken by the applicant in his Review Petition, which the Reviewing Authority failed to consider in its proper prospective.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 191 - L S Panta - Full Document
1