Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.52 seconds)
Rishu Verma vs D/O Post on 15 March, 2019 cites

B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995

12. Before parting, we may notice certain judicial pronouncements on the interference by courts in departmental proceedings. It is well settled law that a Tribunal or court of law can interfere in disciplinary proceedings only on limited grounds. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of interference in disciplinary proceedings including penalty in a recent decision of S.R. Tewari Vs. Union of India & Another, 2013 (3) SCT 461 and placing reliance on the cases of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Others, AIR 1996 SC 484; High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Udaysingh S/o Ganpatrao Naik Nimbalkar & Ors, AIR 1997 SC 2286 and Government of Andhra Pradesh & ors Vs. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, 2006 (1) SCT 588, it has been held that the Court must keep in mind that judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re- appreciating the evidence as an appellate authority. Thus, the court is devoid of the power to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the proof of a particular charge, as the scope of judicial review is limited to the process of making the decision and not against the decision itself and in such a situation the court cannot arrive on its own independent finding.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 2256 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Krushnakant B. Parmar vs Union Of India & Anr on 15 February, 2012

8. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KRUSHNAKANT B. PARMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER, (2012) 3 SCC 178 to plead that since I.O. has failed to consider any evidence to record finding of guilt against him and no specific finding has been given with regard to violation of rule 3(1)(ii) and rule 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules and as to whether absence amounted to wilful absence or not, so the impugned order stands vitiated. It was so held in the indicated case by the apex dispensation. A perusal of punishment order indicates that before I.O., the applicant has himself admitted the charges during preliminary hearing confirming his admission in his statement dated 7.8.2015 and it has clearly been held that the charges are very serious in nature which indicated his total non devotion to duty and an action which is unbecoming of a government servant. The overall discussion by authorities would lead to only one conclusion that the applicant indeed remained wilfully absent from duties considering his working of only 10 days during three spells that too during probation period of his job. In these circumstances, the indicated judgement does not help the applicant from any angle and is distinguishable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 454 - Full Document

State Of Meghalaya & Ors vs Mecken Sing N. Marak on 9 May, 2008

In the case of STATE OF MEGHALAYA & ORS. V. MECKEN SINGH N. MARAK, AIR 2008 SC 2862, it was held that a Court or a Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment is not commensurate with the proved charges. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocks the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 147 - J M Panchal - Full Document

S.R.Tewari vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 May, 2013

12. Before parting, we may notice certain judicial pronouncements on the interference by courts in departmental proceedings. It is well settled law that a Tribunal or court of law can interfere in disciplinary proceedings only on limited grounds. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of interference in disciplinary proceedings including penalty in a recent decision of S.R. Tewari Vs. Union of India & Another, 2013 (3) SCT 461 and placing reliance on the cases of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Others, AIR 1996 SC 484; High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Udaysingh S/o Ganpatrao Naik Nimbalkar & Ors, AIR 1997 SC 2286 and Government of Andhra Pradesh & ors Vs. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, 2006 (1) SCT 588, it has been held that the Court must keep in mind that judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re- appreciating the evidence as an appellate authority. Thus, the court is devoid of the power to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the proof of a particular charge, as the scope of judicial review is limited to the process of making the decision and not against the decision itself and in such a situation the court cannot arrive on its own independent finding.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 279 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Shri Udaysingh S/O Ganpatrao ... on 9 April, 1997

12. Before parting, we may notice certain judicial pronouncements on the interference by courts in departmental proceedings. It is well settled law that a Tribunal or court of law can interfere in disciplinary proceedings only on limited grounds. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of interference in disciplinary proceedings including penalty in a recent decision of S.R. Tewari Vs. Union of India & Another, 2013 (3) SCT 461 and placing reliance on the cases of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Others, AIR 1996 SC 484; High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Udaysingh S/o Ganpatrao Naik Nimbalkar & Ors, AIR 1997 SC 2286 and Government of Andhra Pradesh & ors Vs. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, 2006 (1) SCT 588, it has been held that the Court must keep in mind that judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re- appreciating the evidence as an appellate authority. Thus, the court is devoid of the power to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the proof of a particular charge, as the scope of judicial review is limited to the process of making the decision and not against the decision itself and in such a situation the court cannot arrive on its own independent finding.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 83 - Full Document
1