Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)Union Of India vs H. C. Goel on 30 August, 1963
"Mala fide exercise of power can be attacked independently on the ground that it is mala fide. Such an exercise of power is always liable to be quashed on the main ground that it is not a bona fide exercise of power. But we are not prepared to hold that if mala fides are not alleged and bona fides are assumed in favour of the appellant, its conclusion on a question of fact cannot be successfully challenged even if it is manifest that there is not evidence to support it. The two infirmities are separate and distinct though, conceivable, in some cases both may be present. There may be cases of no evidence even where the Government is acting bona fide, the said infirmity may also exist where the Government is acting mala fide and in that case, the conclusion of the Government not supported by any evidence may be the result of mala fides but that does not mean that if it is proved that there is no evidence to support the conclusion of the Government, a writ of certiorari will not issue without further proof of mala fides."
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs S. Sree Rama Rao on 10 April, 1963
"The scope of Article 226 in dealing with departmental inquiries has come up before this Court. Two propositions were laid down by this Court in (State of A.P. v. Sree Rama Rao), . First, there is no warrant for the view that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of mis-conduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court must be applied. If the rule be not applied by a domestic Tribunal of inquiry the High Court in petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not a Court of appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a department enquiry against a public servant. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonable support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by a irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at the conclusion, the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole Judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226.
Nand Kishore Prasad vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 19 April, 1978
21. Shri Bora next cited before us the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Nand Kishore Prasad v. The State of Bihar and others, reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1277, wherein their Lordships were pleased to observe :---
J. D. Jain vs The Management Of State Bank Of India & ... on 17 December, 1981
22. On the question of the scope of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Shri Jadhav has also drawn our attention to certain authorities. Shri Jadhav referred us to a ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of J.D. Jain v. Management of State Bank of India and another, , wherein the learned Judges were pleased to hold :---
K. L. Shinde vs State Of Mysore on 26 March, 1976
24. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the decisions of the highest Court, we shall now consider the submission made by Shri Bora, to the effect that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the finding that the petitioner had connived at the offence of acceptance of illegal gratification. In order to substantiate his submission, Shri Bora has taken us through certain portions of the evidence. Shri Bora referred to the evidence of the complainant Shivsing Pardeshi and pointed out that Shivsing had not stated in his complaint that at the time when P.C. Dongre made the demand for a bribe, the petitioner was present. Relying on this part of the evidence of the complaint, Shri Bora submitted that a demand was the first ingredient of the offence of acceptance of bribe and it was undisputed that at the time when P.C. Dongre made the demand for a bribe from the complainant Shivsing, the petitioner was not present. Therefore, at the initial stage the petitioner's presence was not proved. Shri Bora has further taken us through the evidence of the complaint Shivsing and stated that on the day on which P.C. Dongre made an appointment with the complainant for the acceptance of the bribe, the petitioner, was present. However, when the talk between Shivsing Rajput and P.C. Dongre took place, he was not present. According to Shri Bora this evidence would also indicate that the petitioner was at no time aware of the fact that Shivsing Rajput was about to pass the amount of Rs. 65/- as a bribe or that P.C. Dongre was going to accept that amount as bribe. Shri Bora submitted that if the petitioner was unaware of this fact, then he could not be found guilty of connving at the offence of accepting illegal gratification. Shri Bora submitted that all that should be stated on the evidence was that the petitioner had taken the moneys from P.C. Dongre and kept them in his pocket and that later that amount was recovered from the pocket of the petitioner. Shri Bora contended that mere recovery of money was not sufficient to prove acceptance of bribe. He stated that other circumstances were necessary.
Hazari Lal vs Delhi Administration on 15 February, 1980
In support of this submission, Shri Bora relied upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Hazari Lal v. The State Administration, wherein their Lordships observed :---
Section 66 in The Maharashtra Prohibition Act [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Chitra Venkata Rao on 29 August, 1975
20. Shri Bora next relied upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Chitra Venkata Rao, , where the scope of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was discussed. Their Lordships held:
1