Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)
T.Sakthivel vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 February, 2020 cites

R.P. Bhatt vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 December, 1986

"The word 'consider' in R.27(2) implies 'due application of mind'. It is clear upon the terms of R.27(2) that the appellate authority is required to consider (1) whether the procedure laid down in the Rules has been complied with; and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice; (2) Whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on record; and (3) Whether the 10/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.8661 of 2013 penalty imposed is adequate and thereafter pass orders confirming, enhancing etc, the penalty, or may remit back the case to the authority which imposed the same. R27(2) casts a duty on the appellate authority to consider the relevant factors set forth in clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof. There is no indication in the impugned order that the Director General was satisfied as to whether the procedure laid down in the Rules had been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance had resulted in violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice. We regret to find that the Director General has also not given any finding on the crucial question as to whether the findings of the disciplinary authority were unwarranted by the evidence on record. It seems that he only applied his mind to the requirement of clause (2) of R.27(2) viz., whether the penalty imposed was adequate or justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There being non-compliance with the requirements of R.27(2) of the Rules the impugned order passed by the Director General is liable to be set aside."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 131 - A P Sen - Full Document
1