Back
B. R. SARANGI, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Sujit Biswas – Appellant
Versus
Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Hindpiri – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No.11360 of 2023:
1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 89 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the delay of 89 days may be condoned.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent states that he has no objection to the delay condonation application.
4. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the delay is condoned.
5. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed.
L.P.A. No. 429 of 2023:
Prayer:
6. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 17.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3039 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the writ petitioner has been dismissed from service under the provision as contained under Regulation 39.2(b) of the Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010. Further the order dated 19.01.2015 passed by the respondent no.3 confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 17.4.2015 passed by the respondent no.2 has been declined to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition.
Facts:
7. The brief facts of th
Bank employees must uphold high standards of integrity; misconduct involving public funds warrants severe penalties, and judicial review does not extend to re-evaluating evidence in disciplinary proc....
Judicial review in departmental proceedings is limited to ensuring procedural fairness, not evaluating the merits of evidence. The disciplinary authority's conclusions, supported by some evidence, ar....
Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to assessing procedural fairness; evidence must meet the preponderance of probabilities standard in administrative contexts, not beyond a reason....
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts cannot reappraise evidence or substitute their judgment unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts cannot reassess evidence or interfere unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on preponderance of probabilities, and the court does not reappraise evidence unless there is a violation of natural justice.
(1) Dismissal--Standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from standard of proof required in departmental enquiries, same charges and evidence may lead to different results in....
Disciplinary proceedings against bank employees must adhere to established regulations, and decisions upheld by the appellate authority are not subject to re-evaluation by the High Court unless deeme....
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
