Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Supreme Court limits Central Admin Tribunal's power on disciplinary penalties; upholds procedural fairness</h1> <h3>UNION OF INDIA Versus PARMA NANDA</h3> UNION OF INDIA Versus PARMA NANDA - 1989 (42) E.L.T. 320 (SC), 1989 AIR 1185, 1989 (2) SCR 19, 1989 (2) SCC 177, 1989 (2) JT 132, 1989 (1) SCALE 606 Issues Involved:1. Power of the Central Administrative Tribunal to examine the adequacy of penalty awarded to a government servant in disciplinary proceedings.2. Jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.3. Scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.4. Validity of the Tribunal's discretion to interfere with penalties imposed by disciplinary authorities.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Power of the Central Administrative Tribunal to examine the adequacy of penalty awarded to a government servant in disciplinary proceedings:The central issue in this case was whether the Tribunal had the authority to modify the penalty awarded by the competent authority to a government servant, based on the adequacy or proportionality of the punishment. The Tribunal had reduced the penalty imposed on the respondent from dismissal to stopping of five increments, arguing that the punishment was disproportionate to the gravity of the charge and inconsistent with penalties given to others involved in the same act. The Supreme Court, however, held that the Tribunal does not have the power to interfere with the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority if the findings are supported by legal evidence and the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.2. Jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985:The judgment analyzed the statutory framework of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, particularly Sections 14, 15, 16, 27, 28, and 29, which outline the jurisdiction, powers, and authority of the Tribunal. The Act confers on the Tribunal the jurisdiction previously exercised by civil courts and High Courts in relation to service matters, including disciplinary matters. However, the Tribunal's powers are limited to those of judicial review and do not extend to substituting its own judgment for that of the disciplinary authority.3. Scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters:The Court reiterated that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited. The Tribunal cannot act as an appellate body to re-evaluate the evidence or the appropriateness of the punishment. The Court cited several precedents, including State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan and Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, to emphasize that if the enquiry and the findings are supported by evidence, the penalty imposed by the competent authority cannot be altered by the Tribunal unless it is arbitrary or perverse.4. Validity of the Tribunal's discretion to interfere with penalties imposed by disciplinary authorities:The Supreme Court clarified that the Tribunal's jurisdiction does not include the power to interfere with the penalties imposed by the disciplinary authority unless there is a violation of principles of natural justice or the findings are wholly unsupported by evidence. The Court stressed that the power to impose penalties is vested in the competent authority by legislative acts or rules under Article 309 of the Constitution, and the Tribunal cannot substitute its discretion for that of the authority.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order that reduced the penalty imposed on the respondent. The Court emphasized that the respondent was found guilty of serious misconduct involving fraud and that leniency in such cases would undermine the integrity of public administration. Consequently, the respondent's Special Leave Petition seeking complete exoneration was dismissed. The judgment reinforced the principle that the Tribunal's role is limited to ensuring that the disciplinary process adheres to legal and procedural norms, without encroaching on the discretionary powers of the disciplinary authorities.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found