Back
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, REKHA BORANA
Guman Singh son of Bhanwar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER :
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar J.
This writ petition has been filed to challenge the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench in Original Application No.251 of 2007 not to interfere with the penalty of dismissal dated 27th September 2006. The writ petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 21st December 2023 by which the petition seeking review of the order dated 16th March 2011 has been dismissed.
2. In the order dated 16th March 2011, the Tribunal considered the judgments in “Prabhu Lal Agarwal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” (1993) LAB I.C. 1000, “Gadadhar Rambin vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors.” (1989) 4 SLR 724 and, “Har Govind Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors.” in O.A. No.148 of 1994 relied upon by the petitioner. The Tribunal also referred to the judgments in “Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. T.K. Raju” (2006) 3 SCC 143 and “Syndicate Bank & Ors. vs. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati” (2006) 3 SCC 150 cited on behalf of the employer-Heavy Water Board.
3. The Tribunal after having considered the rival contentions came to a conclusion that it has no power to re-appreciate the evidence or to interfere with the punishment awarded to the delinquent
The disciplinary authority's findings are conclusive unless proven perverse, and the punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct.
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts cannot reassess evidence or interfere unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
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 review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts do not interfere unless findings are perverse or punishment is shockingly disproportionate.
The tribunal's decision to remand for lesser punishment was justified based on the principle of proportionality in disciplinary actions.
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts may intervene if the penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.
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.
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
