Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.50 seconds)Jaswant Singh Gill vs M/S. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors on 10 November, 2006
42. Thus, we overrule the decision in Jaswant Singh
Gill [Jaswant Singh Gill v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., (2007) 1
SCC 663 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 584] .
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Chairman Cum Managing Director ... vs Sri Rabindranath Choubey on 27 May, 2020
12. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the rival parties, at
the outset it is to be indicated that Ld. Sr. Counsel for the
Petitioner during course of his argument has relied upon a
judgment in the case of Jaswan Singh Gill v. Bharat
Coking Coal Limited.1 The reliance of the Petitioner is
wholly misplaced, inasmuch as, the said judgment stood
overruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields
Limited v. Rabindranath Choubey,2 wherein at paragraph
41 and 42, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as
under :-
Eastern Coalfields Limited vs Rabindra Kumar Bharti on 7 April, 2022
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently in the
case of Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Rabindra Kumar
Bharti,3 held the scope of the departmental proceedings. It
has been held that in the criminal trial the charges are
required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts, whereas;
in the departmental proceedings, the findings are to be
recorded on the basis of the 'Preponderance of Probabilities'
The submission of final form in favour of the Petitioner is of
no consequence. In a final-form also, there is a mention of
the irregularity which was committed in allowing M/s. Rungta
Mines Limited and M/s. Adhunik Alloys and Power Limited to
continue with the normal policy and with respect to non-
application of tapering policy to both the units besides
allowing both the units to continue to lift coal without
3
(2022) 12 SCC 390
10
2025:JHHC:30127
payment of add on price as per the guidelines issued by the
Ministry of Coal.
The State Of Karnataka vs N.Gangaraj on 14 February, 2020
17. Even otherwise, the law with regards to judicial
review is also well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj,4 by a judgment
dated 14th February, 2020 has reiterated that scope of
judicial review is confined only to the decision-making
process. Power of judicial review conferred on the
Constitutional Court or Tribunal is not that of an appellate
authority but is of a review of the manner in which the
decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure
that individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that
that conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily
correct in the eyes of the Court. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the
said judgment read as under -
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs S. Sree Rama Rao on 10 April, 1963
In State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [State of A.P. v. S.
Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723] , a three-Judge Bench
of this Court has held that the High Court is not a court of
appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a
departmental enquiry against a public servant. It 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. The Court held as under :
Union Of India vs H. C. Goel on 30 August, 1963
In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union
of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964
SC 364] , this Court held at p. 728 that if the
conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence
reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or
suffers from patent error on the face of the record or
based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could
be issued."