Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.54 seconds)Lalit Popli vs Canara Bank & Ors on 18 February, 2003
16.With regard to the issue of Handwriting expert, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that the charges levelled against the Respondent
No.2 with regard to forgery was proved in the enquiry proceedings and
there were convincing reasons, circumstantial evidence in addition to the
expert opinion of the Handwriting expert. While relying on the judgment
of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lalit Popli v. Canara
Bank & Ors. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 583, learned counsel submitted
that strict rules of evidence are not required in departmental proceedings.
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
17.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
findings of the Inquiry Officer are not binding on the Disciplinary
Authority. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are only his opinion on the
materials, but such findings are not binding on Disciplinary Authority as
the decision making authority is the punishing authority and, therefore,
that authority can come to its own conclusion, of course bearing in mind
the views expressed by the Inquiry officer. But it is not necessary that the
Disciplinary Authority should discuss materials in detail and contest the
conclusions of the Inquiry Officer. Otherwise the position of the
Disciplinary Authority would get relegated to a subordinate level. With
regard to the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner
relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme court in B.C. Chaturvedi
v. Union of India & Ors. reported as (1995) 6 SCC 749.
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs S. Sree Rama Rao on 10 April, 1963
19.Learned counsel for the Petitioner while relying on the judgement of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama
Rao reported as AIR (1963) SC 1723 submitted that where there is some
evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry
has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion
that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of
the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the
evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence.
Syndicate Bank vs General Secretary Syndicate Bank Staff ... on 25 April, 2000
20. It is the contention of Mr. Kapur that the Disciplinary Authority has very
well followed the principles of Natural Justice while assessing the case of
Respondent No.2 as per the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
the matter of Syndicate Bank v. The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank
Staff Association reported as (2000) 5 SCC 65. It is his contention that
the entire premise of the Impugned Award is based on the erroneous
presumption that the Enquiry Officer‟s report containing its findings
were not conveyed to the Respondent No.2 and no opportunity was given
to him to persuade the Disciplinary Authority to accept the favorable
conclusion of the Inquiry Officer. He submitted that, admittedly the copy
of enquiry proceeding, inquiry officer‟s report as well as the tentative
reasons for disagreement with the Enquiry Officer were duly recorded by
the Disciplinary Authority on 18.04.1994 and was further forwarded to
W.P.(C) 3643/2003 Page 7 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:06.06.2023
15:59:18
Respondent No.2 on the same day itself to represent. Further, Respondent
No.2 submitted its reply to the tentative reasons dated 18.04.1994 to the
Disciplinary Authority. It is also pertinent to note that an opportunity of
personal hearing was also accorded to Respondent No.2 on 13.08.1994
before the well-reasoned final decision was taken by the Disciplinary
Authority on 25.10.1994. Hence, the finding of the learned Labour Court
is erroneous wherein it observed that the Disciplinary Authority while
differing with the findings of Enquiry officer, did not record tentative
reasons for disagreement and sent the same to the workman to explain
before recording his own findings and issuing show cause notice of
proposed punishment.
Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C, Etawah ... vs Hoti Lal & Anr on 11 February, 2003
21.The learned counsel while relying on the judgment of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. SRTC v. Hoti Lal reported as (2003)
3 SCC 605 and Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana reported as
(1999) 5 SCC 762 held that the court exercising the jurisdiction of
judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in
the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or
perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a
finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could
have arrived at that finding.
Bank Of India And Anr vs Degala Suryanarayana on 12 July, 1999
21.The learned counsel while relying on the judgment of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. SRTC v. Hoti Lal reported as (2003)
3 SCC 605 and Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana reported as
(1999) 5 SCC 762 held that the court exercising the jurisdiction of
judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in
the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or
perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a
finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could
have arrived at that finding.
Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Devi Dayal on 8 March, 2002
22.Lastly, with regard to Backwages, it is the contention of the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that the learned Labour Court while awarding
backwages and directing reinstatement did not apply its mind to the
question of entitlement to backwages and there was no rational basis
whatsoever for awarding full backwages with interest. With regard to that
he relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of
W.P.(C) 3643/2003 Page 8 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:06.06.2023
15:59:18
Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Devi Dayal reported as
(2002) 3 SCC 473.
Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963
46.At this stage, it is expedient to refer to the celebrated judgment of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of Syed Yakoob v. K.S.
Radhakrishnan, reported as AIR 1964 SC 477 wherein it was
categorically held that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a
supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as
an Appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of
fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation
of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. The
relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
Hari Vishnu Kamath vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others on 9 December, 1954
Similarly, if a finding of fact
is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of
law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing
with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in
mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be
challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the
ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before
the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the
impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led
on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said
finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal,
and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is
within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High
Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be
legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed
Ahmad Ishaque [(1955) 1 SCR 1104] Nagandra Nath
Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals
Assam [(1958) SCR 1240] and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar
Singh [AIR 1960 SC 1168]