Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.43 seconds)Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India & Ors vs J. Ahmed on 7 March, 1979
7.19. This Tribunal has also considered the judicial pronouncements
relied upon by the parties. The judgments in Roop Singh Negi
(supra), M.V. Bijlani (supra), Inspector Prem Chand (supra) and
Union of India vs. J. Ahmed (supra) reiterate the settled principle
that disciplinary proceedings must rest upon legally sustainable
evidence establishing identifiable misconduct and cannot proceed
merely on conjectures, suspicion or inferential assumptions.
Khagendra Nath Paul vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 1 August, 2013
The
decision in Khagendra Nath Pal vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 19 December, 2008
7.19. This Tribunal has also considered the judicial pronouncements
relied upon by the parties. The judgments in Roop Singh Negi
(supra), M.V. Bijlani (supra), Inspector Prem Chand (supra) and
Union of India vs. J. Ahmed (supra) reiterate the settled principle
that disciplinary proceedings must rest upon legally sustainable
evidence establishing identifiable misconduct and cannot proceed
merely on conjectures, suspicion or inferential assumptions.
M.V. Bijlani vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006
7.19. This Tribunal has also considered the judicial pronouncements
relied upon by the parties. The judgments in Roop Singh Negi
(supra), M.V. Bijlani (supra), Inspector Prem Chand (supra) and
Union of India vs. J. Ahmed (supra) reiterate the settled principle
that disciplinary proceedings must rest upon legally sustainable
evidence establishing identifiable misconduct and cannot proceed
merely on conjectures, suspicion or inferential assumptions.
Inspector Prem Chand vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Others on 5 April, 2007
7.19. This Tribunal has also considered the judicial pronouncements
relied upon by the parties. The judgments in Roop Singh Negi
(supra), M.V. Bijlani (supra), Inspector Prem Chand (supra) and
Union of India vs. J. Ahmed (supra) reiterate the settled principle
that disciplinary proceedings must rest upon legally sustainable
evidence establishing identifiable misconduct and cannot proceed
merely on conjectures, suspicion or inferential assumptions.
Union Of India And Another vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana on 22 November, 2006
In O.A. No. 350/1013/2024, the respondents have also
contended that judicial interference at the stage of charge
memorandum is limited, and reliance has been placed on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs.
Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, wherein it has
been held that ordinarily, courts should not interfere with a Charge
Sheet at the threshold, as the disciplinary authority must be
permitted to complete the inquiry process.
6.5. In relation to O.A. No. 350/205/2026, Learned Counsel for
the respondents submits that the order dated 20.01.2025 was
issued consequent upon conclusion of disciplinary proceedings
and, therefore, no interference is called for.
6.6. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the
settled principles governing limited judicial interference in
disciplinary proceedings and at the stage of charge sheet.
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Upendra Singh on 17 February, 1994
7.20. The judgments relied upon by the respondents in Upendra
Singh (supra) and Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (supra) indeed lay
down the limited scope of judicial interference in disciplinary matters.
However, the present case stands on a distinguishable footing, since
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Department of Personnel and
Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c6700616c4ebefeb5b49203412a39d11b0d,
Utkarsh Jha PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a,
CN=Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Ku.Chandrakala @ Chandrakanta Das vs Prakash Kankariya 25 Wps/2259/2019 ... on 29 March, 2019
5.8. Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon a series of
judicial pronouncements in support of the applicant's case,
particularly, on the scope and limits of disciplinary jurisdiction, the
requirement of identifiable misconduct under service
jurisprudence, and the impermissibility of sustaining disciplinary
proceedings on mere suspicion or disputed interpretation of
external regulations. Reliance has, inter alia, been placed upon the
judgments in U. Das vs. Union of India (O.A. No. 288 of 2015),
Tushar Ranjan Mohanty vs. Union of India (O.A. No. 3020 of
2016 and connected proceedings), M.R. Diwan vs. Union of India
(O.A. No. 1645 of 2017), Union of India vs. J. Ahmed (AIR 1979
SC 1022), Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank [(2009) 2
SCC 570], M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India [(2006) 5 SCC 88],
Inspector Prem Chand vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2007) 4 SCC
566], and the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in
Khagendra Nath Pal vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. [(1997) 12
CAL CK 0006] in support of the contention that disciplinary
proceedings cannot be sustained in absence of cogent proof of
misconduct and that departmental authorities cannot enlarge the
scope of enquiry beyond their lawful jurisdiction.
1