Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.26 seconds)Ceo, Krishna District Coop. Central ... vs K Hanumantha Rao And Anr on 9 December, 2016
13. The Supreme Court in a case reported in (2017) 2 SCC 528
(Chief Executive Oficer, Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank
Limited and another Vs. K. Hanumantha Rao and another), has
observed as under:-
State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Kamal Prasad & Ors on 23 April, 2014
"7.2.1. No doubt, the award of punishment, which is grossly in excess
to the allegations, cannot claim immunity and remains open for interference
under limited scope for judicial review. This limited power of judicial
review to interfere with the penalty is based on the doctrine of
proportionality which is a well-recognised concept of judicial review in our
jurisprudence. The punishment should appear to be so disproportionate that
it shocks the judicial conscience. (See State of Jharkhand v. Kamal Prasad
7
[State of Jharkhand v. Kamal Prasad, (2014) 7 SCC 223 : (2014) 2 SCC
(L&S) 386] .)
Kendriya Vidalaya Sangathan Staff ... vs Kendriya Vidalaya Sangathan on 28 February, 1997
It would also be apt to extract the following observations in
this behalf from the judgment of this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangthan v. J. Hussain [Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan v. J. Hussain, (2013)
10 SCC 106 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 833] : (SCC pp. 110-12, paras 8-10)
"8. The order of the appellate authority while having a relook
at the case would, obviously, examine as to whether the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority is reasonable or not. If the
appellate authority is of the opinion that the case warrants lesser
penalty, it can reduce the penalty so imposed by the disciplinary
authority. Such a power which vests with the appellate authority
departmentally is ordinarily not available to the court or a tribunal.
The court while undertaking judicial review of the matter is not
supposed to substitute its own opinion on reappraisal of facts.
Sangita Thakur vs Rakesh Singh Thakur 34 Crmp/1101/2014 ... on 9 April, 2019
10. An imprimatur to the aforesaid principle was accorded by
this Court as well in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India [Ranjit Thakur
v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1987)
5 ATC 113] . Speaking for the Court, Venkatachaliah, J. (as he then
was) emphasising that "all powers have legal limits" invoked the
aforesaid doctrine in the following words: (SCC p. 620, para 25)
'25. ... The question of the choice and quantum of
punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion
of the Court Martial. But the sentence has to suit the
offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive
or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate
to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount
in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine
of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial
review, would ensure that even on an aspect which
is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the
Court Martial, if the decision of the court even as to
sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the
sentence would not be immune from correction.
1