Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.40 seconds)
Banwari Lal vs Union Of India on 7 May, 2024 cites

Vichitra Banwarilal Meena vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 August, 1982

6.3 Another troubling aspect of the case is that the applicant gave a statement in the enquiry on 06.02.2007 that he had gone home after taking leave for 23-24.07.2004, but could not return due to deterioration of his son's health and that he intimated this fact by post on 25.07.2004 and again informed by post on 09.08.2004 as his son was in serious condition. It is not disputed that the applicant's son passed away on 21.08.2005. The sickness of the applicant's son and his death took place during the period of unauthorized absence from 25.07.2004 to 04.09.2005. Yet we find no mention of this consideration in the findings of the enquiry officer as well as the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The orders passed by the appellate authority and the revising authority also do not address this aspect. A sensitive and humane approach would have required at least an acknowledgment of the personal tragedy suffered by the applicant. We find to our dismay that such consideration was given short shrift by the respondents. Consequently, the punishment imposed on the applicant, being grossly disproportionate in our opinion, has shocked our conscience. 6.4 During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the matter may not be remanded to the Page 8 of 9 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00404 of 2012 BanwariLal Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. respondents.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 40 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs P.Gunasekaran on 3 November, 2014

22. To sum up the legal position, being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in P. Gunasekaran (supra). If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to re-consider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefor."
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 856 - Full Document
1