Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)Section 4 in Assam Rifles Act, 1941 [Entire Act]
Chairman And Managing Director,United ... vs P.C.Kakkar Chairman And Managing ... on 11 February, 2003
Para-12 of the judgment in Chairman and
Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors v. P.C.Kakkar: (2003) 4
SCC 364 (supra) is quoted as under:
State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Mohammed Ayub Naz on 3 January, 2006
Further the Apex Court in para 10 of the SCC in
State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Mohd. Ayub Naz : (2006) 1 SCC 589 held that:
Union Of India & Another vs G. Ganayutham on 27 August, 1997
The Constitution Bench E.P. Royappa -vrs- State of Tamil Nadu,
(1974) 4 SCC 3: 1974 SCC (L&S) 165 held that where punishments in
disciplinary cases are challenged, question will be whether the administrative
order is "rational" or "reasonable" and the test then is the Wednesbury Test.
The Apex Court in Union of India & Anr. v. G.Ganayutham: (1997) SCC (L&S)
1806 had summed up position relating to "proportionality" in paras - 31 and 32
which read as follows:
Union Of India & Ors vs Corporal A.K. Bakshi & Anr on 23 February, 1996
Para 10 of the SCC in Corporal A.K. Bakshi's case
(Supra) reads as follows:-
Union Of India & Ors vs Dwarka Prasad Tiwari on 12 October, 2006
17. The Apex Court is of the view that the court's interference with the
quantum of punishment cannot be a routine matter. The court should not
interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from
procedural impropriety. Para 10, 11 and 15 of the Dwarka Prasad Tiwari's case
(supra) reported in Union of India & Ors v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari : (2006) 10
SCC 388 reads as follows:-
Canara Bank vs V.K. Awasthy on 31 March, 2005
Paras 21, 22 and 23 of the SCC in Canara Bank's case (Supra)
read as follows:-