Supreme Court of India
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus RAJ KISHORE YADAV AND ANR.
- Decided
- 20 June 2006
- Judges listed
- AR. LAKSHMANAN, ALTAMAS KABIR
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 63 · 2006 INSC 376
- Also cited as
- (2006) 5 SCC 673
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 3 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the respondents.
p. 63, margin G
This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1505/1996 allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein. The High Court by the impugned order modified the punishment by way of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and quashed the order of dismissal from service awarded to the respondent herein. The High Court also ordered reinstatement with all pecuniary and consequential service benefits.
pp. 63–64, margin G
We have been taken through the charges framed against the respondent herein and also the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and also the order passed in the Claim Petition. Five charges were framed against the respondent herein. The charges are very serious in nature. The charges No.1,2,3 and 5 have been proved beyond any doubt. Charge No.4 has not been proved.
p. 64, margin A
On a consideration of the entire materials placed before the authorities, they came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal would meet the ends of justice. When a Writ Petition was filed challenging the correctness of the order of dismissal, the High Court interfered with the order of dismissal on the ground that the acts complained of were sheer mistakes or errors on the part of the respondent herein and for that no punishment could be attributed to the respondent. In our opinion, the order passed by the High Court quashing the order of dismissal is nothing but the error of judgment. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in allowing the Writ Petition and quashing the order of dismissal and granting continuity of service with all pecuniary and consequential service benefits. It is a settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed. As already noticed, the charges are very serious in nature and the same have been proved beyond any doubt. We have also carefully gone through the Enquiry Report and the order of the Disciplinary Authority and of the Tribunal and we are unable to agree with the reasons given by the High Court in modifying the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. In short, the judgment of the High Court is nothing but perverse. We, therefore, have no other option except to set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority ordering dismissal of the respondent herein from service. It is ordered accordingly. The Civil Appeal stands allowed.
p. 64, margin C
No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.
p. 64, margin G