Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)

Union Of India And Another vs Tulsiram Patel And Others on 11 July, 1985

18. In the present matter, from the perusal of the impugned order as well as appellate order clearly reveals that Disciplinary Authority has also considered the conduct of the original applicant which has led to his conviction. Appellate Authority has discussed all the issues in detail. There was no occasion at this stage to re-assess the plea of alibi by the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 19 (i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Only requirement is to see the conduct of the employee which lead to his conviction. Both orders passed by the Disciplinary as well as Appellate Authority satisfy the test laid down in Tulsi Ram Patel (supra) case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 138 - Cited by 1450 - D P Madon - Full Document

Shanker Dass vs Union Of India & Anr on 12 March, 1985

6|Page MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA has been in fact convicted, he can also agitate this question in appeal, revision or review. If he fails in all the departmental remedies and still wants to pursue the matter, he can invoke the court's power of judicial review subject to the court permitting it. If the court finds that he was not in fact the person convicted, it will strike down the impugned order and order him to be reinstated in service. Where the court finds that the penalty imposed by the impugned order is arbitrary or grossly excessive or out of all proportion to the offence committed or not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case or the requirements of that particular government service the court will also strike down the impugned order. Thus, in Shankar Dass v. Union of India and another, [1985] 2 S.C.C. 358, this Court set aside the impugned order of penalty on the ground that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the appellant was whimsical and ordered his reinstatement in service with full back wages. It is, however, not necessary that the Court should always order reinstatement. The Court can instead substitute a penalty which in its opinion would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case".
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 137 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1