Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.18 seconds)Yoginath D. Bagde vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 16 September, 1999
In support of the above said contentions, the learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the observation of the Apex Court contained in paragraph 53 of the judgment reported in A.I.R.1999 SC 3734 (Yoginath D.Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra and another) which reads as follows:-
Ishwar Chand Jain vs High Court Of Punjab & Haryana And ... on 26 May, 1988
8. ... In a judicial review, normally, appreciation of evidence is not resorted to. But, when the failure on the part of the authority to look into the material facts or evidence, which cut at the roots of the allegation and that too, a serious one like in the instant case, and the disciplinary proceeding being quasi-judicial in nature, not only should there be reasons, but those reasons should have supporting material. If the litigants, who suffer adverse decisions from the Judge, who handed out the judgments are allowed to have their say in this manner, it is very difficult for the judicial officers to sustain. As already stated above, we have to balance the severity of the allegations with that of sustaining the independence of judiciary, and only when the evidence is so overwhelming and beyond all reasonable doubts that the judicial officer can be inflicted punishment. The analysis of the evidence, which has not been done by the enquiry committee and the vital contradictions not having been considered and there being non-existent facts, we find that the charges 3 and 4 levelled against the petitioner are also unsustainable.
The learned senior counsel submitted that the above said vital contradictions in the evidence have not been considered by the Enquiring Judge in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and according to the learned senior counsel the findings recorded are such to which no reasonable person would have reached and therefore the finding warrants interference by this Court.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs Union Of India & Others on 23 February, 2007
In support of the said contentions he relied upon the observation of the Apex Court contained in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the judgment reported in 2007 (4) S.C.C. 54 (Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India) which read as follows:-
R.K. Sethi & Anr vs Oil & Natural Gas Commission & Ors on 28 January, 1997
A decision by a department differs from the decision by a designated official, body or tribunal created exclusively for adjudication, for while in the latter case the discretion exercised and the views taken are of the specified authority itself, in the former case, the decision is that of the department as a whole and represents the cumulative wisdom of a number of anonymous officials through whose hands the file of the case may pass, and in this sense it is institutional and not a personal or an individual decision of one person.
Learned Advocate General further submitted that as early as 1914, in the famous case of Local Government Board Vs. Arlidge (1915) AC 120, the House of the Lords upheld the validity of an institutional decision and the decision came up for consideration in R. Vs. Commission for Racial Equality, exparte Cottrell and Rothon (1980) 3 All England Reports 265 and in that decision the effect of the decision has been summarised as follows:-
High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Shirish Kumar Rangrao Patil & Anr on 30 April, 1997
In our considered view the law laid down by the Apex Court in AIR 1955 SC 271 (referred to supra) squarely applies to this case. Therefore, when the Enquiring Judge has acted on the above said irrelevant material, it is impossible to say to what extent the mind of the Enquiring Judge was affected by the irrelevant material used by him in arriving at the findings on Charge Nos.3 and 4 are concerned. Therefore, in our considered view as the Enquiring Judge has relied upon irrelevant material the findings on Charge Nos.3 and 4 are vitiated.
V.R. Katarki vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 22 March, 1990
In support of the said submissions, the learned senior counsel relied upon the decisions reported in 2003 (11) S.C.C. 741 (Chandra Vilash Rai Vs. State of Bihar and others), A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1241 (V.R.Katarki Vs. State of Karnataka and others) and the order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 08.10.2001 passed in W.P.No.92 of 1998 (A.Ramasswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and two others).
M.V. Bijlani vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006
In support of the above said contentions, the learned senior counsel relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1955 SC 271 (Dhirajlal Vs. I.T. Commr., Bombay) and (2006) 5 SCC 88 (M.V.Bijlani Vs. Union of India). In AIR 1955 SC 271 (referred to supra) in paragraph 5 the Apex Court has observed as follows:-
Chandra Vilash Rai vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 1 February, 2001
In support of the said submissions, the learned senior counsel relied upon the decisions reported in 2003 (11) S.C.C. 741 (Chandra Vilash Rai Vs. State of Bihar and others), A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1241 (V.R.Katarki Vs. State of Karnataka and others) and the order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 08.10.2001 passed in W.P.No.92 of 1998 (A.Ramasswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and two others).