Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Chairman-cum-M. D. ,T. N. C. S. Corpn. LTD. VS K. Meerabai...
Chairman-cum-M. D. ,T. N. C. S. Corpn. LTD. VS K. Meerabai - 2006 1 Supreme 360 : The legal documents establish that in departmental disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof required is not ''''proof beyond doubt'''' as in criminal cases, but rather ''''preponderance of probabilities'''' and ''''some material on record'''' to conclude that misconduct has occurred. The documents emphasize that the disciplinary authority''''s findings are based on a dispassionate and independent examination of the entirety of facts and evidence, and that the order of dismissal was supported by unassailable reasons and impeccable facts. The court affirmed that the disciplinary authority''''s decision was not based on a total non-application of mind and was well-reasoned, indicating that substantial evidence existed to support the conclusion of misappropriation and malpractices causing huge loss to the Corporation.Checking relevance for Union Of India VS Dilip Paul...
Union Of India VS Dilip Paul - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1107 : The legal documents establish that ''''substantial evidence'''' is a key standard in disciplinary proceedings, particularly in cases involving sexual harassment against government servants. The Central Complaints Committee''''s findings were upheld because they were based on substantial evidence, not conjecture. The courts are required to assess whether the conclusion of the disciplinary authority is supported by any evidence at all, not whether the evidence is sufficient or adequate. If the entire evidence is accepted as true, the conclusion must follow. This approach avoids weighing the evidence and focuses on whether the impugned conclusion logically follows from the evidence. The standard of proof in departmental inquiries is preponderance of probabilities, and findings are not to be interfered with unless they are based on no evidence or are wholly perverse. Thus, ''''substantial evidence'''' means evidence that is sufficient to support the conclusion, even if not overwhelming, and the absence of such evidence renders the finding legally unsustainable.Checking relevance for United Bank of India VS Biswanath Bhattacharjee...
United Bank of India VS Biswanath Bhattacharjee - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 79 : In departmental enquiries, courts will not interfere with findings of fact unless they are based on no evidence or are clearly perverse. The test for perversity is whether a reasonable tribunal, acting reasonably, could have arrived at such a conclusion on the material on record. The court may intervene if the finding is based on no evidence at all, even if the authority acted in good faith. This principle was established in Union of India vs. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718, where the court held that if there is no evidence to support the conclusion of the disciplinary authority, a writ of certiorari may issue, regardless of mala fides. The court emphasized that it must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion, not whether the evidence is sufficient or adequate. Thus, the presence of ''''substantial evidence'''' is not required for the finding to be upheld; rather, the absence of any evidence is the threshold for judicial intervention.Checking relevance for STATE OF KARNATAKA VS N. GANGARAJ...
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS N. GANGARAJ - 2020 2 Supreme 725 : In disciplinary proceedings, courts or tribunals cannot interfere with findings of fact based on evidence if the findings are supported by some legal evidence, even if the evidence is not conclusive or reliable. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts, and the court''''s power of judicial review is not an appeal to reappreciate evidence or arrive at independent findings. Interference is only permissible if the finding is based on no evidence, is perverse, or violates principles of natural justice or statutory regulations. The adequacy or reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed before the court in a writ petition under Article 226. The standard of proof in departmental enquiries is lower than in criminal proceedings, and a finding of guilt in a departmental inquiry is not invalidated by a subsequent criminal acquittal.Checking relevance for Union of India VS Dalbir Singh...
Union of India VS Dalbir Singh - 2021 6 Supreme 715 : In departmental disciplinary proceedings, the finding of fact must be based on ''''some evidence'''' and the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. The court''''s power of judicial review does not permit reappreciation of evidence or interference with conclusions if there is some legal evidence on which findings can be based. The standard of proof in departmental proceedings is ''''preponderance of probability'''', which is lower than the ''''beyond reasonable doubt'''' standard in criminal cases. The court may interfere only if the finding is based on no evidence, is perverse, or suffers from patent error on the face of the record. The existence of substantial evidence is sufficient to uphold a disciplinary finding, even if the criminal court has acquitted the individual.
