Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.25 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 300A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Upendra Singh on 17 February, 1994
33. To contend that charge sheet issued in a departmental inquiry is
normally not subject to judicial review by the Court/Tribunal, the learned
counsel for the respondents placed reliance on a catena of decisions. The
learned counsel relied on the decision in Union of India & Ors. v.
Upendra Singh [(1994) 3 SCC 357]. In that Supreme Court held that the
scope of judicial review is confined to limited grounds and the
Tribunals/Courts are not expected to examine the correctness of the
charges particularly at the stage of framing of charges. It was held that
such an exercise was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, which is
akin to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
The Deputy Inspector General Of Police vs K.S. Swaminathan on 4 October, 1996
The same view was reiterated by the Supreme
Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police v. K.S. Swaminathan
2026.01.09
Sebastian Antony
15:59:17+05'30'
24
[(1996) 11 SC 498], wherein it was held that it is settled by a catena of
decisions that if the charge memo is totally vague and does not disclose
any misconduct for which the charges have been framed, the Tribunal or
the Court would not be justified at that stage to go into whether the
charges are true and could be gone into, for it would be a matter on
production of the evidence. At the stage of framing of the charge, the
statement of facts and the charges sheet supplied are required to be
looked into by the Court or the Tribunal as to the nature of the charges i.e.
whether the statement of facts and material in support thereof supplied to
the delinquent would disclose the alleged misconduct.
Union Of India And Another vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana on 22 November, 2006
34. The above position was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Union
of India & Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28]. Here
the court was dealing with premature impugning of a show cause notice
or a charge sheet through a writ proceeding. While holding that such a
procedure was not justifiable, it was held that no doubt in some very rare
and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge sheet or show
cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some
other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court
should not interfere in such a matter.
B. Manmad Reddy & Ors vs Chandra Prakash Reddy & Ors on 17 February, 2010
In Secretary, Ministry of Defence &
2026.01.09
Sebastian Antony
15:59:17+05'30'
25
Ors. v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha [(2012) 11 SCC 565], it was held that
a charge sheet or show cause notice is normally not liable to be quashed,
as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent employee and
does not give rise to any cause of action. However, it can be quashed on
ground of issuing authority being not competent to issue the same or on
ground of delay in initiating or concluding the enquiry proceedings
causing prejudice to delinquent.