Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.27 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Sinha on 2 February, 2010
12. The proposition of law that a government employee facing a departmental enquiry is entitled to all the relevant statements, documents and other materials to enable him to have a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry against the charges is too well established to need any further reiteration. The department should ensure that the delinquent officer is given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and during the cross-examination the delinquent had the opportunity of confronting the witnesses. The meaning of a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken is that the government servant is afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against charges on which inquiry is held. The government servant should be given an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence. He can do so when he is told what the charges against him are. He can do so by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him. This is the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, referred to above.
Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 19 December, 2008
(xiii) Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank,(2009) 2 SCC 570 :
The Commissioner Of Police And Ors vs Syed Hussain on 25 January, 2006
21. Normally, this Court would not interfere with the proportionality of the quantum of punishment and it is for the competent authority to decide in accordance with the rules. However, it is seen from the material documents that the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority on the preponderance of probabilities and also presumptions and assumptions to impose the punishment of removal from service is harsh and excessive. The power of this Court to interfere with the proportionality of the quantum of punishment has been time and again considered by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, one of which being the case of Commissioner of Police v. Syed Hussain, referred to above, wherein it has been categorically held that the doctrine of proportionality has to be applied in appropriate cases, and another being the case of B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India, 1995 (6) SCC 749, in which it is held that if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks to the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary authority/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. Therefore, when the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority is shockingly disproportionate to the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court while giving due consideration, can certainly interfere with such punishment and remand the matter to the authority to decide what appropriate punishment could be imposed on the delinquent.
Union Of India & Ors vs Gyan Chand Chattar on 28 May, 2009
13. The Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, cited above, has held that serious charge of corruption requires to be proved to the hilt, as it brings civil and criminal consequences upon the employee concerned. He would be liable to be prosecuted and would also be liable to suffer severest penalty awardable in such cases. Therefore, such a grave charge of quasi-criminal nature is required to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt and to the hilt. It cannot be proved on mere probabilities.
State Of U.P vs Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava & Ors on 24 February, 2006
"17. The departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial one. Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. The courts exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. The Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that the evidence adduced by the Department, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely, preponderance of probability. If on such evidences, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal was within its domain to interfere. We must place on record that the doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine of proportionality. (See State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava2 and Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn.3)
The Management Of Coimbatore District ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 3 November, 2004
"17. The departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial one. Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. The courts exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. The Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that the evidence adduced by the Department, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely, preponderance of probability. If on such evidences, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal was within its domain to interfere. We must place on record that the doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine of proportionality. (See State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava2 and Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn.3)
Union Of India & Ors vs Prakash Kumar Tandon on 17 December, 2008
(vii) Union of India v. Prakash Kumar Tandon, (2009) 2 SCC 541 :