Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 55 (2.47 seconds)
Shri Santosh Kumar Sur vs Union Of India & Ors. on 3 June, 2010 cites

Union Of India & Anr vs K.G. Soni on 17 August, 2006

110. The Supreme Court has in a host of cases while dealing with the question of quantum of punishment, held that courts would apply the Wednesbury principles of reasonableness while considering the question of quantum of punishment. It has been held that if punishment is in violation of these principles, the matter would normally require to be remitted to the administrator for a fresh decision on the same. It is only in rare cases where there has been a long delay because of the time taken in completing the same, would it be permissible to a court to substitute its own view with regard to the W.P.(C) No.995/1988 Page No.59 of 69 quantum of punishment. (Ref: (2006) 6 SCC 794 Union of India Vs. K.G. Soni & (2004) 8 SCC 218 Regional Manager, Rajasthan SRTC vs. Sohan Lal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 112 - A Pasayat - Full Document

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

104. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently urged that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the respondent no.2 was more than justified keeping in view the imperative necessity to maintain discipline in the force as its personnel who are entrusted with sensitive tasks and that the petitioner being the superior officer, took a large group of CISF personnel to Pant Stadium which was completely outside the jurisdiction of the CISF and W.P.(C) No.995/1988 Page No.55 of 69 his actions were beyond the duties assigned to him. Mr. Manikya Khanna, learned counsel for the respondents contends that therefore the punishment imposed by the respondent no.2 was justified and not disproportionate to the gravity of the petitioner's misconduct. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported at (2008) 7 SCC 580 State of Meghalaya Vs. Macken Singh N. Marak; (2007) 10 SCC 88 M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited Vs. Jahan Khan & (2006) 6 SCC 794 Union of India Vs. K.G. Soni in support of his submissions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 147 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Govt. Of A.P. & Ors vs Mohd. Narsullah Khan on 31 January, 2006

40. So far as the challenge to the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to assail the action of the respondents on any established ground of judicial review is concerned, the parameters thereof have been laid by the Apex Court in the judgments placed by the respondents before us. Noteworthy is the pronouncement of the Apex Court reported at Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan (supra) wherein, placing reliance on earlier pronouncements of the court on the issue raised before us, the Apex Court held as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 229 - H K Sema - Full Document

M.P. State Agro Industries Development ... vs Jahan Khan on 5 September, 2007

104. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently urged that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the respondent no.2 was more than justified keeping in view the imperative necessity to maintain discipline in the force as its personnel who are entrusted with sensitive tasks and that the petitioner being the superior officer, took a large group of CISF personnel to Pant Stadium which was completely outside the jurisdiction of the CISF and W.P.(C) No.995/1988 Page No.55 of 69 his actions were beyond the duties assigned to him. Mr. Manikya Khanna, learned counsel for the respondents contends that therefore the punishment imposed by the respondent no.2 was justified and not disproportionate to the gravity of the petitioner's misconduct. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported at (2008) 7 SCC 580 State of Meghalaya Vs. Macken Singh N. Marak; (2007) 10 SCC 88 M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited Vs. Jahan Khan & (2006) 6 SCC 794 Union of India Vs. K.G. Soni in support of his submissions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 265 - D K Jain - Full Document

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

"31. In such a situation, unless the Court/ Tribunal opines in its secondary role, that the administrator was, on the material before him, irrational according to Wednesbury or CCSU norms, the punishment cannot be quashed. Even then, the matter has to be remitted back to the appropriate authority for reconsideration. It is only in very rare cases as pointed out in B. C. Chaturvedi's case AIR 1995 SCW 4374 that the Court might, - to shorten litigation - think of substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment in the place of the punishment awarded by the competent authority. (In B. C. Chaturvedi and other cases referred to therein it has however been made clear that the power of this Court under Article 136 is different). For the reasons given above, the case cited for the respondent, namely.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 2256 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next