Karam Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others
!
"#$# %& '
'
() *
* *
)&
+, )'
* ) *, !!!!
) *,
- '
./ " # $
%%&'%%() * $
+$, -
, . $ $ /0 %2"2%2"2/3 4%0,
, /0 )
%22&%2%6/3 470
%82&%2%6/3 460,
% # $ ,
,
,, 1
,
+.,
7
$ ,
#
$
# ,
4
6 * $
,
9 :
,
+ +
%2"2%2"2/3 4%0
,#
3 )
%22&%2%6/3 470
%82&%2%6/3 460
%2"2 6.
No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. Where illegality is manifest, it cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. State cannot deprive vested right because of a nondeliberate
( ,;
$<+
) 3
.$) $
$ , 3
,
) ,
$ $ $ 3 , ) - .$)
,
3
,
,
# 3
$
, =
! "
##$
% %
!
%
&
&
'
&
%
%
%
&
##$
(
8
$
$ )
3 > Scope of interference while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The Court has no power to look into quantum of sentence/punishment unless and until Court finds that sentence awarded is disproportionate to alleged offence. It is further settled proposition of law that High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India can look into the procedure followed by authorities. In case, it is found that enquiry officer or disciplinary authority has not considered any evidence on record or misread the evidence or procedure as prescribed by law has not been followed, the Court can interfere. A two judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs.
Subrata Nath, (2022) SCC OnLine 1617 while adverting with scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary proceedings has held that departmental authorities are fact finding authorities. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered its judicial precedents including a two-judge Bench judgment in Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610.
10.
The Supreme Court has time and again reminded that High Court cannot examine factual position and disturb findings recorded by departmental authorities. The Court has further held that High Court
cannot re-quantify quantum of punishment, however, if Court finds that punishment awarded is disproportionate to alleged offence, the Court may ask the authorities to re-consider quantum of punishment. In the instant case, the respondent has passed impugned order after following due process of law. There is no procedural or legal infirmity in the impugned order.
11.
*,
)
, $
.
) *,
2(29%2%9
?
$' @ 'A
?
@ 'A