TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court limits High Court's interference in punishment matters, reinstating with lesser punishment.</h1> <h3>CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK & ORS. Versus P.C. KAKKAR</h3> The Supreme Court emphasized the limited scope of interference by the High Court in matters of punishment, directing reinstatement with a lesser ... - Issues Involved:1. Scope of interference by the High Court in the matter of punishment.2. Application of proportionality and Wednesbury principles in judicial review.3. Consideration of co-delinquent's punishment as a ground for interference.4. Requirement for recording reasons when punishment is deemed shockingly disproportionate.Summary:Scope of Interference by the High Court in the Matter of Punishment:The primary question was the scope of interference by the High Court in the matter of punishment. The High Court found no challenge to the findings of misconduct but interfered with the quantum of punishment, directing reinstatement with a lesser punishment. The Supreme Court emphasized that the scope of such interference is extremely limited and should not be routine.Application of Proportionality and Wednesbury Principles in Judicial Review:The judgment discussed the principles of judicial review, particularly the Wednesbury principles and proportionality. It was noted that interference is not permissible unless the decision is contrary to law, relevant factors were not considered, or the decision was one which no reasonable person could have taken. The court highlighted that in cases where fundamental freedoms are not involved, the Wednesbury test applies, and the court's role is secondary.Consideration of Co-delinquent's Punishment as a Ground for Interference:The High Court's decision was partly based on the fact that a co-delinquent, M.L. Keshwani, received a lesser punishment. The Supreme Court clarified that even if a co-delinquent is given lesser punishment, it cannot be a ground for interference, especially when the allegations are contextually different.Requirement for Recording Reasons When Punishment is Deemed Shockingly Disproportionate:The Supreme Court stressed that when a court finds a punishment shockingly disproportionate, it must record reasons for such a conclusion. Mere expression that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate does not meet the legal requirement. The High Court failed to provide reasons for its conclusion, which was a significant oversight.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not record any reason for finding the punishment shockingly disproportionate and that the charges against the employee were serious. The matter was remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration on the punishment aspect alone, treating all other matters as final. The appeal by the employer was disposed of, and the appeal by the employee was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
