Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)Om Kumar And Ors vs Union Of India on 17 November, 2000
12. The above noted decisions give a clear idea of the limited scope of
judicial review of the discretion exercised by the employer to impose a particular
penalty on the delinquent employee. The Supreme Court as well as this Court
has repeatedly emphasised that the Court should not exercise appellate
jurisdiction in such matters and substitute their opinion for the one formed by
the Disciplinary Authority. The Supreme Court in the case of Om Kumar Vs.
Union of India (supra) has taken the view that the Court, while reviewing
punishment, if it is satisfied that the Wednesbury principles are violated, it has
normally to remit the matter to the administrator for a fresh decision as to the
quantum of punishment. Only in extreme and rare cases where there has been
long delay in the time taken by the disciplinary proceedings and in the time
taken in the courts, can the court substitute its own view as to the quantum of
punishment. Having regard to the length of service and also taking into
consideration the fact that the petitioner retired and four years thereafter, the
Departmental inquiry came to be initiated and further taking into consideration
the allegation of negligence, I am of the view that the matter deserves to be
remitted to the Disciplinary Authority for a fresh decision as to the quantum of
punishment.
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
In Tata Cellular V. Union of India
(1994) 6 SCC 651 at Pp. 679-680: (1994 AIR SCW
3344 and at Pp. 3369-70: AIR 1996 SC 11);
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) ... vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 6 December, 1984
Indian Express Newspapers Vs. Union of India
(1985) 1 SCC 641 at p.691 : (AIR 1986 SC 515 at
Pp.542-43): Supreme Court Employees' Welfare
Association V. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187
at p.241 : (AIR 1990 SC 334 at p.368: 1990 Lab
IC 324 at p.358) and U.P. Financial Corporation
V. GEM CAP (India) Pvt.Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC 299,
at p. 307: (1993 SC 1435 at p.1439), while
judging whether the administrative action is
'arbitrary' under Art. 14 (i.e. otherwise than
being discriminatory), this Court has confined
itself to a Wednesbury review always."
Supreme Court Employees' Welfare ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 24 July, 1989
Indian Express Newspapers Vs. Union of India
(1985) 1 SCC 641 at p.691 : (AIR 1986 SC 515 at
Pp.542-43): Supreme Court Employees' Welfare
Association V. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187
at p.241 : (AIR 1990 SC 334 at p.368: 1990 Lab
IC 324 at p.358) and U.P. Financial Corporation
V. GEM CAP (India) Pvt.Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC 299,
at p. 307: (1993 SC 1435 at p.1439), while
judging whether the administrative action is
'arbitrary' under Art. 14 (i.e. otherwise than
being discriminatory), this Court has confined
itself to a Wednesbury review always."
U.P. Financial Corporation vs Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 2 March, 1993
Indian Express Newspapers Vs. Union of India
(1985) 1 SCC 641 at p.691 : (AIR 1986 SC 515 at
Pp.542-43): Supreme Court Employees' Welfare
Association V. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187
at p.241 : (AIR 1990 SC 334 at p.368: 1990 Lab
IC 324 at p.358) and U.P. Financial Corporation
V. GEM CAP (India) Pvt.Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC 299,
at p. 307: (1993 SC 1435 at p.1439), while
judging whether the administrative action is
'arbitrary' under Art. 14 (i.e. otherwise than
being discriminatory), this Court has confined
itself to a Wednesbury review always."
Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C, Etawah ... vs Hoti Lal & Anr on 11 February, 2003
In Regional Manager U.P. SRTC V. Hoti Lal,
(2003) 3 SCC 605, the Supreme Court outlined the mode to
be adopted for determining whether the punishment imposed
by the disciplinary authority is shockingly
disproportionate and observed as under:
Director General R.P.F. And Ors vs Ch. Sai Babu on 29 January, 2003
If the charged employee holds
a position of trust where honesty and integrity
are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would
not be proper to deal with the matter leniently.
Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with
iron hands. Where the person deals with public
money or is engaged in financial transactions or
acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree
of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and
unexceptional." (underlining is ours)
In Director General, RPF V. Ch. Sai Babu (2003)
4 SCC 331, the Supreme Court reiterated that the High
Court should ordinarily not interfere with the discretion
exercised by the disciplinary authority in the matter of
imposition of punishment and observed: