Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.65 seconds)
Aditya vs Comm. Of Police on 25 March, 2025 cites

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

19. It is apparent that the facts and circumstances of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents i.e. B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors. and State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Srinath Gupta & Anr (supra) are not similar to the case in hand. Still in the above-mentioned judgements, observances to the principals of natural justice have been stressed as important measures to be adhered to while conducting Departmental inquiry. Accordingly, we have tested the pleadings filed in this OA by the parties within the scope and ambit of above-mentioned judgements diligently. 15 OA No. 4300/2015 Item No.11/C-II
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 2256 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Srinath Gupta & Anr on 25 October, 1996

19. It is apparent that the facts and circumstances of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents i.e. B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors. and State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Srinath Gupta & Anr (supra) are not similar to the case in hand. Still in the above-mentioned judgements, observances to the principals of natural justice have been stressed as important measures to be adhered to while conducting Departmental inquiry. Accordingly, we have tested the pleadings filed in this OA by the parties within the scope and ambit of above-mentioned judgements diligently. 15 OA No. 4300/2015 Item No.11/C-II
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Gyan Chand Chattar on 28 May, 2009

The controversy was again canvassed in State Bank of India's case (supra), where the court elaborately reviewed the case law on the scope of judicial review and powers of the Tribunal in disciplinary matters and nature of punishment. On 14 OA No. 4300/2015 Item No.11/C-II the facts in that case, since the appellate authority had not adverted to the relevant facts, it was remitted to the appellate authority to impose appropriate punishment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 229 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

State Bank Of India And Ors vs Samarendra Kishore Endow And Anr on 18 January, 1994

.......Recently, in State bank of India & Ors. v. Samarendra Kishore Endow & Anr. [J] (1994) 1 SC 217], a Bench of this Court to which two of us (B.P. Jeevan Reddy & B.L. Hansaria, JJ.) were members, considered the order of the Tribunal, which quashed the charges as based on no evidence, went in detail into the question as to whether the Tribunal had power to appreciate the evidence while exercising power of judicial review and held that a Tribunal could not appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion to that of the disciplinary authority. It would, 13 OA No. 4300/2015 Item No.11/C-II therefore, be clear that the Tribunal cannot embark upon appreciation of evidence to substitute its own findings of fact to that of a disciplinary/appellate authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 200 - Full Document

State Of Orissa vs Bidyabhujshan Mohapatra on 19 October, 1962

xxxxxx The next question is whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Orissa Ors. v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra [AIR 1963 SC 779] held that having regard to the gravity of the established misconduct, the punishing authority had the power and jurisdiction to impose punishment. The penalty was not open to review by the High Court under Article 226. If the High Court reached a finding that there was some evidence to reach the conclusion, it became unassessable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 229 - J C Shah - Full Document

Union Of India vs Sardar Bahadur on 29 October, 1971

xxxxxxx ............. The court had no jurisdiction, if the findings prima facie made out a case of misconduct, to direct the Governor to reconsider the order of penalty. This view was reiterated in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur [(1972) 2 SCR 218].It is true that in Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. [AIR 1983 SC 454], a Bench of two Judges of this Court, while holding that the High Court did not function as a court of appeal, concluded that when the finding was utterly perverse, the High Court could always interfere with the same. In that case, the finding was that the appellant was to supervise felling of the trees which were not hammer marked. The Government had recovered from the contractor the loss caused to it by illicit felling of trees. Under those circumstances, this Court held that the finding of guilt was perverse and unsupported by evidence. The ratio, therefore, is not an authority to conclude that in every case the Court/Tribunal is empowered to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 244 - Full Document

Bhagat Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors. on 24 January, 1983

xxxxxxx ............. The court had no jurisdiction, if the findings prima facie made out a case of misconduct, to direct the Governor to reconsider the order of penalty. This view was reiterated in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur [(1972) 2 SCR 218].It is true that in Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. [AIR 1983 SC 454], a Bench of two Judges of this Court, while holding that the High Court did not function as a court of appeal, concluded that when the finding was utterly perverse, the High Court could always interfere with the same. In that case, the finding was that the appellant was to supervise felling of the trees which were not hammer marked. The Government had recovered from the contractor the loss caused to it by illicit felling of trees. Under those circumstances, this Court held that the finding of guilt was perverse and unsupported by evidence. The ratio, therefore, is not an authority to conclude that in every case the Court/Tribunal is empowered to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 437 - Full Document
1   2 Next