Back
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, DONADI RAMESH
Noor Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Kumar Birla, J
1. Heard Shri Gulab Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Krishna Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 10.08.1989 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut as well as the order dated 24.12.1994 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the order dated 25.04.1997 passed by the Inspector General of Police and the order dated 22.10.2003 passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No.709 of 2003.
3. Stamp reporter has reported laches of 7 years and 29 days in filing present petition on the date of reporting on 18.02.2011.
4. To explain the delay learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to paragraph nos. 2 and 14 to 37. The grounds for explaining the laches of 7 years and 29 days is that after decision of the Tribunal dated 22.10.2003, petitioner reached Allahabad on 01.01.2004 where some imposter met him at Allahabad Railway Station and took him to Advocate Shri Suresh Swaroop Saxena, who ultimately promised to file a petition and take all relevant papers along with expenses and get his si
The judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness, the limited scope of judicial review, and the need for evidence to support findings in disciplinary proceedings involving members of dis....
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.
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to natural justice and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings.
The principle of proportionality mandates that disciplinary punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and dismissal for minor infractions may be deemed excessive.
The findings in the criminal and departmental proceedings were based on the same set of facts, and acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the individual to relief in departmental....
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 to ensuring due process was followed, not to reassess the proportionality of punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate.
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
