Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Bank Of India & Ors vs Ramesh Dinkar Punde on 11 August, 2006
The learned Advocate relied upon the decision reported in (2006) 7 SCC
212; State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Ramesh Dinkar Pundey on the scope of
judicial review by High Court under writ jurisdiction.
Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C vs Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad on 7 November, 2006
He referred to (2007) 1
SCC 222; A.P. SRTC vs. Raghada Siva Sankar Prasad on the issue of scope of
judicial review by High Court under writ jurisdiction and also on the quantum of
punishment.
(Smt.) Smita Pandurang Dalvi, Of Bombay ... vs Ratnakar Dattatraya Patade, Of Bombay, ... on 26 February, 2002
He also referred to the decision rendered in the case of Depot
Manager, A.P. SRTC vs. B. Swami reported in (2007) 12 SCC 40 on the
proposition of proportionality of penalty.
Wp(C) No.354/2014 vs Union Of India on 9 October, 2018
He further referred to an unreported
judgment of this Court passed on 2nd April, 2014 in WP No. 9747 (W) 2009 Abdul
Ahmed vs. Union of India.
Union Of India & Anr vs Dinesh Kumar on 16 February, 2010
With regards to the contention raised by the petitioners that the order of
dismissal was a non-speaking one and no reason whatsoever had been
mentioned in the impugned order of dismissal reliance may be placed on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. Dinesh
Kumar reported in (2010) 3 SCC 161. The questions framed by the Supreme
Court for consideration in the appeal were:
Union Of India & Ors vs Himmat Singh Chahar on 12 May, 1999
The extent of the power of judicial review by the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India was under consideration by the Supreme Court
in Union of India & Ors. Vs Himmat Singh Chahar reported in (1999) 4 SCC
521 wherein the court held that 'notwithstanding the finality attached to the
orders of the Competent Authority in the Court Martial Proceeding the High
Court is entitled to exercise its power of judicial review by invoking jurisdiction
under Article 226 but that would be for a limited purpose for finding out whether
there has been infraction of any mandatory provisions of the Act which has
caused miscarriage of justice or for finding out whether there has been violation
of the principles of natural justice which vitiates the entire proceedings or that
the authority exercising the jurisdiction had not been vested with the jurisdiction
under the Act. The said power of judicial review cannot be a power of an
Appellate Authority permitting the High Court to re appreciate the evidence and
in coming to a conclusion that the evidence is insufficient for the conclusion
arrived at by the Competent Authority in Court martial Proceedings.'
Within the limited scope of judicial review it is evident that in the instant
case the petitioners in no uncertain terms admitted their guilt and pleaded guilty
in the ROE and before SSFC. The ROE was done by the Deputy Commandant
and placed before the Commandant being the SSFC who passed the order of
dismissal. There does not appear to be any violation of the principles of natural
justice throughout the entire proceedings. There is no iota of doubt and there are
enough evidences to prove that the petitioners were actively involved in cattle
smuggling across the border. The petitioners themselves pleaded guilty to avoid
punishment under section 40 of the BSF Act.