Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ANAND SHARMA
A K TANDON – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA MUMBAI – Respondent
[2026:RJ-JP:1137]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9608/2002 A.K. Tandon s/o Late Shri Saligram Tandon, aged 50 years, resident of 563/25, Govind Nagar, Ramganj, Ajmer.
----Petitioner Versus Central Bank of India, a body corporate under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, through its head office situated at Chandramukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021.
----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Kersi J. Mehta Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rupin K. Kala Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
Date of conclusion of arguments :: 08.01.2026 Date on which judgment was reserved :: 08.01.2026 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced :: Full Judgment Date of pronouncement :: 16.01.2026
1. The present writ peti
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.
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts cannot reassess evidence or interfere unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts cannot reappraise evidence or substitute their judgment unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the need for evidence-based findings and the principles of proportionali....
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
Listen Article