Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)
Prathvi Raj Sharma vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Min. Of Home ... on 13 April, 2012 cites

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

16. Having considered the submissions of the parties and having gone through the record, I find that the charge proved against the petitioner is not simply that of abstaining or absenting from duty, but is also that of refusal to perform duty, which was assigned to the petitioner in the night of 8.1.2000. It has been proved that the petitioner while on duty, despite request from the guard commander, refused to continue with his duty and left the place after leaving his weapon and the bullets in the presence of his fellow constable on duty. Once the enquiry officer upheld the charge of refusal to perform duty coupled with absence from duty, that too by a member of the Police Armed Constabulary, which is a disciplined force, the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to grossly disproportionate. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India (supra) has to be considered in the light of the facts of that case, as would be evident from paragraph Nos. 12, 13 and 14 of the said judgment, which are being reproduced below:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 454 - Full Document

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

"9. The only other plea is regarding punishment awarded. As has been observed in a series of cases, the scope of interference with punishment awarded by a disciplinary authority is very limited and unless the punishment appears to be shockingly disproportionate, the Court cannot interfere with the same. Reference may be made to a few of them. See: B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors., [1995] 6 SCC 749, State of U.P. and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Singh and Anr., [1996] 1 SCC 302.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 2256 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Others vs Ashok Kumar Singh & Anr on 10 November, 1995

In Ashok Kumar Singh's case supra, the employee was a police constable and it was held that act of indiscipline by such a person needs to be dealt with sternly. As noted by the Division Bench of the High Court, penalty of removal of service is statutorily prescribed. It is for the employee concerned to show that how penalty was disproportionate to the proved charges. No mitigating circumstance has been placed by the appellant to show, as to how the punishment could be characterized as disproportionate and/or shocking. On the contrary as established in the discipline proceedings, the appellant left the arms and ammunition unguarded and not in any proper custody. This aggravated the aberrations. Therefore, the order of removal from service cannot be faulted. There is no reason to interfere with the orders of the Division Bench of the High Court."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 160 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

Charanjit Lamba vs Commndng.Officer,Southern Command & ... on 6 July, 2010

20. It would be necessary to note that while judicially reviewing an order of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee the writ court would not assume the role of an appellate authority. The Apex Court in the case of Charanjit Lamba v. Commanding Officer, Army Southern Command, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 314, in paragraph No.20, observed as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 40 - T S Thakur - Full Document
1