Back
P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN
K. Cheriya Koya – Appellant
Versus
U. T. Administration Of Lakshadweep Represented By Standing Counsel, High Court Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
These two review petitions are filed to review the judgment dated 23.12.2022 in O.P.(Crl.) Nos. 608/2022 & 609/2022. The review petitioner is the 3rd respondent in the above original petitions. The above original petitions were disposed of with the following directions :
2) The petitioners in these cases are allowed to raise all their contentions raised in these original petitions before the appellate court by filing appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed in CC No. 24/2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amini, Lakshadweep. If no appeal is filed so far, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners for a further period of one month from today.
3) Issue notice under Sec.340 Cr.P.C. to the additional 3rd respondent, Sri.K.Cheriyakoya, Former Sub Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amini, LAKSHADWEEP, now working as the secretary,
: Authority competent to impose penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank alone is supposed to arrive at provisional conclusion in regard to penalty to be imposed after enquiry against Gover....
Judicial officers must maintain high standards of integrity; dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) upheld due to misconduct and impracticability of inquiry.
The main legal point established in the given judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries and the principles of proportionality and the Wednesbury rule.
Judicial officers must maintain impeccable integrity; disciplinary actions must be based on established misconduct without procedural violations and adhere to high standards of justice.
The judgment emphasized the need for clarifying the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226(2) in relation to challenges against orders passed by the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench,....
The court affirmed the principle that judicial review of administrative actions in disciplinary processes is limited to procedural correctness, not evidential review, and mandated reconsideration of ....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries, asserting that findings must be supported by adequate evidence and fair procedures.
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts cannot reassess evidence or interfere unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
