2013 AIR SCW 3338 ::2013 LAB. I. C. 2810 ::2013 (2) ADR 600 ::(2013) 2 CurLR 609 ::(2013) 138 FacLR 375 ::2013 (6) SCC 602 ::(2013) 7 Scale 417 ::(2013) 6 ADJ 70 (SC) ::(2014) 1 Cal LJ 114 ::(2014) 106 All LR 47 ::(2013) 3 ESC 447 ::(2013) 2 Lab LN 563 ::(2013) 3 JCR 238 (SC) ::(2013) 4 KCCR 324 ::AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 1026 ::(2014) 141 AllIndCas 6 (SC) ::(2013) 127 AllIndCas 56 (SC) ::(2013) 4 ServLR 547 ::(2013) 3 SCT 461

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Delhi)

Hon'ble Judge(s): B. S. Chauhan, Dipak Misra , JJ

(A) Constitution of India , Art.311, Art.226— Disciplinary proceedings - Judicial review - Scope is very limited - Court cannot substitute its own finding for finding recorded by disciplinary authority - Similarly interference with punishment can only be if punishment imposed shocks conscience of Court. The role of the Court in the matter of departmental proceedings is very limited and the Court cannot substitute its own views or findings by replacing the finding arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of the evidence on record. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the Court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the Court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. The Court has to record reasons as to why the punishment is disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice - Mere statement that punishment is disproportionate would not suffice.(Para 22) (B) Constitution of India , Art.226— Finding of fact - When can be said to be suffering from perversity. The findings of fact recorded by a Court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been a....