Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.29 seconds)Amar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2011
While deciding the said case, Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank vs. Munna Lal Jain and judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Amar Singh vs. Union Of India & Ors , wherein it has been observed that "in view of the gravity of charges and misconduct and the fact that the applicant has misappropriated the public money, the penalty of removal of services cannot be held disproportionate."
Central Bank Of India Ltd vs Karunamoy Banerjee on 18 August, 1967
In the case of Central Bank of India vs. Karunamoy Banerjee, AIR 1968 SC 266 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "the rules of natural justice, as laid down by this Court, will have to be observed, in the conduct of a domestic enquiry against a workman. If the allegations are denied by the workman, it is needless to state that the burden of proving the truth of those allegations will be on the management; and the witnesses called, by the management, must be allowed to be cross-examined by the workman, and the latter must also be given an opportunity to examine himself and adduce any other evidence that he might choose, in support of his plea. But, if the workman admits his guilt, to insist upon the management to let in evidence about the allegations, will, in our opinion, only be an empty formality". It is clear from the above said judgment that if a delinquent officer against whom disciplinary proceedings are instituted, admits his guilt, there is no necessity for the management to hold any enquiry.
Channabasappa Basappa Happali vs State Of Mysore on 16 October, 1970
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Channabasappa Basappa Happali, vs. The State of Mysore, AIR 1972 SC32, has observed as under:-
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs S. Sree Rama Rao on 10 April, 1963
In one of the earliest decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, their Lordship have recorded their finding in para 7 by holding that the High Court, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot act as appellate court over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. Being relevant, para 7 of the said judgment reads as under:-
State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Chitra Venkata Rao on 29 August, 1975
In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Chitra Venkata Rao (1975 (2) SCC 557], the aforesaid were further discussed at paragraphs 22 to 24, which read as follows:
Railway Board, Representing The Union ... vs Niranjan Singh on 4 February, 1969
In Niranjan Singh case this Court held that the High Court exceeded its powers in interfering with the findings of the disciplinary authority on the charge that the respondent was instrumental in compelling the shut-down of an air compressor at about 8.15 a.m. on May 31, 1956. This Court said that the Enquiry Committee felt that the evidence of two persons that the respondent led a group of strikers and compelled them to close down their compressor could not be accepted at its face value. The General Manager did not agree with the Enquiry Committee on that point. The General Manager accepted the evidence. This Court said that it was open to the General Manager to do so and he was not bound by the conclusion reached by the committee. This Court held that the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority should prevail and the High Court should not have interfered with the conclusion.
Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963
23. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction. The Court exercises it not as an appellate court. The findings of fact reached by an inferior court or tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence are not reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal, a writ can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Again if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the Inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. See Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan.
Union Of India & Ors vs P.Gunasekaran on 3 November, 2014
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran, 2015 (4) SLR 244, in para No.13 have laid down certain concrete parameters, which deals with interfering in the departmental proceedings, as to when those parameters are not followed by disciplinary authority or delinquent employee is able to prove the violation of principles natural justice, has been carved out in the above said judgment (supra), which reads as under :-
U.P. State Road Transport Corp vs Suresh Chand Sharma on 26 May, 2010
In this regard, it is seen that in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Suresh Chand Sharma, (2010) 6 SCC 555, wherein a contention was raised whether misappropriation/embezzlement of petty sum could warrant the punishment of dismissal, the Hon'ble Apex Court opined as under:-