Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.27 seconds)B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
In Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli
v. Ghlabhia M. Lad reported in 2010 (3) AISLJ SC 28 after considering
the judgments of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India 1996 SCC (L&S) 80;
UCO Bank v. P.C. Kakkar 2003 SCC (L&S) 468; Union of India v. S.S.
Ahluwalia 2007 (2) SCC (L&S) 627; State of Meghalaya v. Macken
Singh 2008 (2) SCC (L&S) 431; DGRPF v. Sai Balu 2003 SCC (L&S)
464; it was held as follows:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Alok Kumar Dass And Ors. on 6 March, 2000
25. The respondents submit that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited
to judicial review, and it cannot sit in appeal over the findings of fact
recorded by the departmental authorities. The Tribunal can interfere only
if the findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or contrary to law.
Reliance is placed on State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh
11
Item No.34- (C-2)
O.A. No. 3043/2015
Greasy, JT 1996 (5) SC 403, and Union of India vs. Alok Kumar &
Ors., 2010 (3) SCSLJ 1.
State Of Orissa & Anr vs Sangram Keshari Misra & Anr on 19 October, 2010
27. Similar view, regarding the correctness of the charges after relying
upon the judgment of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Upender Singh, reported
in 1994 (2) SCC Page-77, has been taken in the case of State of Orissa
and Anr. Vs. Sangram Keshari Mishra & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC (L&S)
Bank Of India vs Jagjit Singh Mehta on 22 November, 1991
34. The decision of the Apex Court in Bank of India vs. Jagjit Singh
Mehta, AIR 1992 Supreme Court page 519, does not support the view
that the Tribunal can interfere as if it is an Appellate Authority so long as
the impugned orders is intra vires and bona fide.
State Of U.P.& Anr vs Man Mohan Nath Sinha & Anr on 17 August, 2009
Further reliance is
9
Item No.34- (C-2)
O.A. No. 3043/2015
placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P.
vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 310, wherein it was
categorically held that a Court, in exercise of judicial review, cannot re-
appraise the evidence led before the Inquiry Officer, nor can it substitute
its own findings for those recorded in the inquiry proceedings.
Apparel Export Promotion Council vs A.K. Chopra on 20 January, 1999
In Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra JT (1999)
(1) SC 61, the Supreme Court held that in departmental proceedings, the
Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of facts. If an appeal is filed, the
Appellate Authority also has full power to re-appreciate evidence and
reach its own conclusions. The Court noted that the High Court had
erred by interfering with factual findings beyond its jurisdiction. This
judgment reaffirmed that fact-finding lies only with departmental
authorities, while courts may step in only where there is illegality,
procedural violation, or perversity of findings.
Sunil Kumar Banerjee vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 26 March, 1980
21. It is contended that the applicant cannot abdicate or shift his duty
and responsibilities onto others. The burden of the work assigned to him
cannot be passed on. The departmental inquiry has been held strictly in
accordance with the prescribed rules, and mere failure to comply with
any technical rule, such as Rule 9(21) of the Railway Servants (Discipline
& Appeal) Rules, 1968, does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings. It is
further submitted that unless prejudice is shown by the delinquent
officer, no interference is warranted, as held in Sunil Kumar Banerjee
vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., (1980) 3 SCC 304.