Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.39 seconds)Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd vs N.B. Narawade on 22 February, 2005
In view of the dissimilarity in facts to some extent we would like to distinguish the judgment in N.B. Narawade's case (supra).
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
It is only in very rare cases as pointed out in B.C. Chaturvedi versus Union of India and Ors. (1995 [6] SCC 749) that the Court might -- to shorten litigation -- think of substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment in the place of the punishment awarded by the competent authority.
Om Kumar And Ors vs Union Of India on 17 November, 2000
8. Before we delve into the matters revealed from the IOs report and the orders of the authorities concerned, we may refer to the settled position in law on the role of this Tribunal in the matters of disciplinary proceedings. It is trite that this Tribunal can examine the evidence to find out whether there is any evidence against the Applicant in the case. We note that our power is limited. We went through many judgments of Honourable Supreme Court of India, viz., B.C. Chaturvedi versus Union of India [1995 (6) SCC 749]; State of Tamil Nadu versus S. Subramanyan, [1996 (7) SCC 509]; State of Tamil Nadu versus K.V. Perumal [1996 (5) SCC 474]; Kuldeep Singh Versus Commissioner of Police and others [1999(2) SCC 10]; Om Kumar versus Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386); M.V. Bijlani versus Union of India [2006 SCC - 5-88] ; State of Rajasthan versus Mohd Ayub Naz [2006 SCC-1-589SC] ; Govt. of A.P. versus Nasrullah Khan [2006 STPL (LE) 36733 SC]; Govt. of India Versus George Philip [2007 STPL (LE) 37755 SC]; Union of India Versus S.S. Ahluwalia [2007 SCC (7) 257] ; and Moni Shankar versus Union of India [2008 SCC (3) 484]. The principles and law set in the above judgments of Honourable Apex Court guided us in the instant OA. Generally, the Tribunal should not interfere with the decision of the executive in the matters of disciplinary proceedings unless those are found to be suffering from certain procedural, legal, statutory improprieties and infirmities. On certain grounds only the Tribunal can scrutinize the relevance or irrelevance of facts; available or absence of evidence; proportionality or otherwise of the punishment; compliance or otherwise of the audi alteram partem; compliance or otherwise of the Wednesbury principle, probability of preponderance doctrine and the like. Some of the guiding principles, we kept in our mind while deciding the controversies in the present OA, are the following: (i) Judicial review by this Tribunal is not an appeal over a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is taken. (ii) The Tribunal can interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary / Appellate / Reversionary Authority, if such a decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or deficiency in the decision making process or penalty imposed was shocking to the conscience of the Tribunal in the sense that such decision was in defiance of logic or moral standards. (iii) The Tribunal exercising the powers of Judicial review is entitled to consider whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of the delinquent officer, relevant piece of evidence has been considered and irrelevant facts have been excluded there from.
M.V. Bijlani vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006
8. Before we delve into the matters revealed from the IOs report and the orders of the authorities concerned, we may refer to the settled position in law on the role of this Tribunal in the matters of disciplinary proceedings. It is trite that this Tribunal can examine the evidence to find out whether there is any evidence against the Applicant in the case. We note that our power is limited. We went through many judgments of Honourable Supreme Court of India, viz., B.C. Chaturvedi versus Union of India [1995 (6) SCC 749]; State of Tamil Nadu versus S. Subramanyan, [1996 (7) SCC 509]; State of Tamil Nadu versus K.V. Perumal [1996 (5) SCC 474]; Kuldeep Singh Versus Commissioner of Police and others [1999(2) SCC 10]; Om Kumar versus Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386); M.V. Bijlani versus Union of India [2006 SCC - 5-88] ; State of Rajasthan versus Mohd Ayub Naz [2006 SCC-1-589SC] ; Govt. of A.P. versus Nasrullah Khan [2006 STPL (LE) 36733 SC]; Govt. of India Versus George Philip [2007 STPL (LE) 37755 SC]; Union of India Versus S.S. Ahluwalia [2007 SCC (7) 257] ; and Moni Shankar versus Union of India [2008 SCC (3) 484]. The principles and law set in the above judgments of Honourable Apex Court guided us in the instant OA. Generally, the Tribunal should not interfere with the decision of the executive in the matters of disciplinary proceedings unless those are found to be suffering from certain procedural, legal, statutory improprieties and infirmities. On certain grounds only the Tribunal can scrutinize the relevance or irrelevance of facts; available or absence of evidence; proportionality or otherwise of the punishment; compliance or otherwise of the audi alteram partem; compliance or otherwise of the Wednesbury principle, probability of preponderance doctrine and the like. Some of the guiding principles, we kept in our mind while deciding the controversies in the present OA, are the following: (i) Judicial review by this Tribunal is not an appeal over a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is taken. (ii) The Tribunal can interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary / Appellate / Reversionary Authority, if such a decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or deficiency in the decision making process or penalty imposed was shocking to the conscience of the Tribunal in the sense that such decision was in defiance of logic or moral standards. (iii) The Tribunal exercising the powers of Judicial review is entitled to consider whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of the delinquent officer, relevant piece of evidence has been considered and irrelevant facts have been excluded there from.
State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Mohammed Ayub Naz on 3 January, 2006
8. Before we delve into the matters revealed from the IOs report and the orders of the authorities concerned, we may refer to the settled position in law on the role of this Tribunal in the matters of disciplinary proceedings. It is trite that this Tribunal can examine the evidence to find out whether there is any evidence against the Applicant in the case. We note that our power is limited. We went through many judgments of Honourable Supreme Court of India, viz., B.C. Chaturvedi versus Union of India [1995 (6) SCC 749]; State of Tamil Nadu versus S. Subramanyan, [1996 (7) SCC 509]; State of Tamil Nadu versus K.V. Perumal [1996 (5) SCC 474]; Kuldeep Singh Versus Commissioner of Police and others [1999(2) SCC 10]; Om Kumar versus Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386); M.V. Bijlani versus Union of India [2006 SCC - 5-88] ; State of Rajasthan versus Mohd Ayub Naz [2006 SCC-1-589SC] ; Govt. of A.P. versus Nasrullah Khan [2006 STPL (LE) 36733 SC]; Govt. of India Versus George Philip [2007 STPL (LE) 37755 SC]; Union of India Versus S.S. Ahluwalia [2007 SCC (7) 257] ; and Moni Shankar versus Union of India [2008 SCC (3) 484]. The principles and law set in the above judgments of Honourable Apex Court guided us in the instant OA. Generally, the Tribunal should not interfere with the decision of the executive in the matters of disciplinary proceedings unless those are found to be suffering from certain procedural, legal, statutory improprieties and infirmities. On certain grounds only the Tribunal can scrutinize the relevance or irrelevance of facts; available or absence of evidence; proportionality or otherwise of the punishment; compliance or otherwise of the audi alteram partem; compliance or otherwise of the Wednesbury principle, probability of preponderance doctrine and the like. Some of the guiding principles, we kept in our mind while deciding the controversies in the present OA, are the following: (i) Judicial review by this Tribunal is not an appeal over a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is taken. (ii) The Tribunal can interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary / Appellate / Reversionary Authority, if such a decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or deficiency in the decision making process or penalty imposed was shocking to the conscience of the Tribunal in the sense that such decision was in defiance of logic or moral standards. (iii) The Tribunal exercising the powers of Judicial review is entitled to consider whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of the delinquent officer, relevant piece of evidence has been considered and irrelevant facts have been excluded there from.
Govt. Of A.P. & Ors vs Mohd. Narsullah Khan on 31 January, 2006
8. Before we delve into the matters revealed from the IOs report and the orders of the authorities concerned, we may refer to the settled position in law on the role of this Tribunal in the matters of disciplinary proceedings. It is trite that this Tribunal can examine the evidence to find out whether there is any evidence against the Applicant in the case. We note that our power is limited. We went through many judgments of Honourable Supreme Court of India, viz., B.C. Chaturvedi versus Union of India [1995 (6) SCC 749]; State of Tamil Nadu versus S. Subramanyan, [1996 (7) SCC 509]; State of Tamil Nadu versus K.V. Perumal [1996 (5) SCC 474]; Kuldeep Singh Versus Commissioner of Police and others [1999(2) SCC 10]; Om Kumar versus Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386); M.V. Bijlani versus Union of India [2006 SCC - 5-88] ; State of Rajasthan versus Mohd Ayub Naz [2006 SCC-1-589SC] ; Govt. of A.P. versus Nasrullah Khan [2006 STPL (LE) 36733 SC]; Govt. of India Versus George Philip [2007 STPL (LE) 37755 SC]; Union of India Versus S.S. Ahluwalia [2007 SCC (7) 257] ; and Moni Shankar versus Union of India [2008 SCC (3) 484]. The principles and law set in the above judgments of Honourable Apex Court guided us in the instant OA. Generally, the Tribunal should not interfere with the decision of the executive in the matters of disciplinary proceedings unless those are found to be suffering from certain procedural, legal, statutory improprieties and infirmities. On certain grounds only the Tribunal can scrutinize the relevance or irrelevance of facts; available or absence of evidence; proportionality or otherwise of the punishment; compliance or otherwise of the audi alteram partem; compliance or otherwise of the Wednesbury principle, probability of preponderance doctrine and the like. Some of the guiding principles, we kept in our mind while deciding the controversies in the present OA, are the following: (i) Judicial review by this Tribunal is not an appeal over a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is taken. (ii) The Tribunal can interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary / Appellate / Reversionary Authority, if such a decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or deficiency in the decision making process or penalty imposed was shocking to the conscience of the Tribunal in the sense that such decision was in defiance of logic or moral standards. (iii) The Tribunal exercising the powers of Judicial review is entitled to consider whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of the delinquent officer, relevant piece of evidence has been considered and irrelevant facts have been excluded there from.
Moni Shankar vs Union Of India And Another on 4 March, 2008
8. Before we delve into the matters revealed from the IOs report and the orders of the authorities concerned, we may refer to the settled position in law on the role of this Tribunal in the matters of disciplinary proceedings. It is trite that this Tribunal can examine the evidence to find out whether there is any evidence against the Applicant in the case. We note that our power is limited. We went through many judgments of Honourable Supreme Court of India, viz., B.C. Chaturvedi versus Union of India [1995 (6) SCC 749]; State of Tamil Nadu versus S. Subramanyan, [1996 (7) SCC 509]; State of Tamil Nadu versus K.V. Perumal [1996 (5) SCC 474]; Kuldeep Singh Versus Commissioner of Police and others [1999(2) SCC 10]; Om Kumar versus Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386); M.V. Bijlani versus Union of India [2006 SCC - 5-88] ; State of Rajasthan versus Mohd Ayub Naz [2006 SCC-1-589SC] ; Govt. of A.P. versus Nasrullah Khan [2006 STPL (LE) 36733 SC]; Govt. of India Versus George Philip [2007 STPL (LE) 37755 SC]; Union of India Versus S.S. Ahluwalia [2007 SCC (7) 257] ; and Moni Shankar versus Union of India [2008 SCC (3) 484]. The principles and law set in the above judgments of Honourable Apex Court guided us in the instant OA. Generally, the Tribunal should not interfere with the decision of the executive in the matters of disciplinary proceedings unless those are found to be suffering from certain procedural, legal, statutory improprieties and infirmities. On certain grounds only the Tribunal can scrutinize the relevance or irrelevance of facts; available or absence of evidence; proportionality or otherwise of the punishment; compliance or otherwise of the audi alteram partem; compliance or otherwise of the Wednesbury principle, probability of preponderance doctrine and the like. Some of the guiding principles, we kept in our mind while deciding the controversies in the present OA, are the following: (i) Judicial review by this Tribunal is not an appeal over a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is taken. (ii) The Tribunal can interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary / Appellate / Reversionary Authority, if such a decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or deficiency in the decision making process or penalty imposed was shocking to the conscience of the Tribunal in the sense that such decision was in defiance of logic or moral standards. (iii) The Tribunal exercising the powers of Judicial review is entitled to consider whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of the delinquent officer, relevant piece of evidence has been considered and irrelevant facts have been excluded there from.
Ranjit Thakur vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1987
In Ranjit Thakur versus Union of India [AIR 1987 SC 2386] the Hon'ble Apex Court interfered with the punishment only after coming to the conclusion that the punishment was in defiance of logic and was shocking. It was also described as perverse and irrational. A view was taken in Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. Versus Ashok Kumar Arora [(1997) 3 SCC 72] by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Court would not intervene unless the punishment was wholly disproportionate, and unless the court/tribunal opined in its secondary role, that the administrator was, on the material before him, irrational, the punishment could not be quashed. Even then, the matter has to be remitted back to the appropriate authority for reconsideration.
Union Of India & Another vs G. Ganayutham on 27 August, 1997
In Union of India and Another versus G. Ganayutham [AIR 1997 SC 3387], considered the proportionality in the administrative law and summed up the principles of proportionality thus :