Back
RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Union of India through the Director General of Central Industrial Security Force – Appellant
Versus
Sudeep Kumar, s/o Sri Ram Narayan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No. 132 of 2020 :
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard through video conferencing. They have no complaint about any audio and/or video quality.
2. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 74 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.
3. Heard the parties.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time.
5. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 74 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned.
LPA No. 05 of 2020:
6. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 28.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7788 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 20.11.2010 and the appellate order dated 19.12.2012, by which the order of punishment of removal has been passed and affirmed, has been quashed and set aside by remitting the matter before the authority to take decision afresh in quantum
The High Court does not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters and will not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shocking to the conscience.
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
