Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.34 seconds)Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India vs H. C. Goel on 30 August, 1963
The enquiry
committee felt that their evidence cannot be accepted at its
face value as they were not able to name any other person in
the group. But the General Manager did not agree with the
enquiry on that point. He fully accepted: their evidence.
It was open to the General Manager to do so. He was not
bound by the conclusions reached by the enquiry committee,
see Union of India v. H. C. Goel(1). This is not a case
where it can be said that the finding of the Disciplinary
Authority is not supported by any evidence nor can it be
said that no reasonable person could have reached such a
finding.
Article 132 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963
Hence the conclusion reached by the Disciplinary
Authority should prevail and the High Court in the exercise
of its Certiorari jurisdiction could not have interfered
with its conclusion, see Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radhakrishnan
and Ors.(2).
State Of Orissa vs Bidyabhujshan Mohapatra on 19 October, 1962
Before we take up for consideration point No. 2 formulated
above, it would be convenient to deal with point No. 3. It
was not disputed before us that the first charge levelled
against the respondent is a serious charge and it would have
been appropriate for the General Manager to remove the
respondent from service on the basis of his finding on that
charge. But we were told that we cannot assume that the
General Manager would have inflicted that punishment solely
on the basis of that charge and consequently we cannot
sustain the punishment imposed if we hold that one of the
two charges on the basis of which it was imposed is
unsustainable. This contention cannot be accepted in view
of the decision of this Court in State of Orissa v.
Bidyabhan Mohapatra(3) wherein it was held that if the order
in an enquiry under Art. 311 can be supported on any finding
as substantial mis-
1