Back
P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN
K. M. Habeeb Muhammed, S/o Kahder Kunju – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, State Bank Of Travancore – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This is one of the oldest original petitions pending before this Court, which was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The folding files almost disappeared from the racks of our High Court, because, now the writ petitions are to be filed in book form and in flat style. This is a writ petition filed in a folded manner in the year 2001! Of course it had a checkered history. The writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution on 10.01.2012. Thereafter, it was restored only on 25.07.2023. At the time of filing the writ petition, the original petitioner was aged 51 years. Probably, he might have reached the age of 75 now. The way in which this original petition is argued by the petitioner’s lawyer would show the fighting mood of the petitioner even now. Now the original petition is going to cross a quarter century as far as the pendency is concerned. This is not the fault of this court, because the petitioner slept over the order dismissing the writ petition for non prosecution for a period of 11 years.
2. The petitioner was working as Deputy Manager at Kozhikode Main Branch of the State Bank of Travancore (hereinafter mentioned as ‘Bank’). He joined the Bank a
The main legal point established is that in disciplinary proceedings, the court's jurisdiction is limited to enquiring whether there is any evidence in support of the impugned conclusion and ensuring....
The court confirmed that disciplinary authorities possess broad discretion in imposing penalties, which cannot be interfered with unless shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or in breach of natural justi....
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference in departmental proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 and the importance of justifying the penalty imposed.
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, highlighting the discretionary power of the disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment and the impo....
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts cannot reappraise evidence or substitute their judgment 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
