Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Karnataka & Anr vs T. Venkatramanappa on 20 September, 1996

Anil Kumar Tyagi vs Delhi Jal Board, Govt. Of Nctd on 28 September, 2017

In State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs T. Venkataramanappa, (1996) 6 SCC 455, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that acquittal in a criminal case cannot be held to be a bar to hold departmental enquiry for the same misconduct for the reason that in a criminal trial, standard of proof is different as the case is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but in the departmental proceeding, such a strict proof of misconduct is not required. In the said case, the departmental proceedings had been quashed by the Tribunal as the delinquent had been acquitted by the criminal court of the same charges. The Hon'ble Apex Court reversed the Tribunal's decision and observed as under:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 45 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Surendra Kumar Meena vs Central Excise And Customs on 27 March, 2023

(i) State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. T. Venkataramanappa , (1996) 6 SCC 455; (2) State of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Allabaksh,(2000) 10 SCC 177; (3) Ajit Kumar Nag vs General Manager (PJ) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764; (4) State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 13; (5) State Bank of India & Ors. vs R.B. Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 4144; ( 6) Union of India & Ors. vs. Naman Singh Shekhawat;
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Bhagwat Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 March, 2002

In the State of Karnataka and Anr. v. T. Venkataramanappa, (1996) 6 SCC 455, the Apex Court has held that acquittal in a criminal case cannot be held to be a bar to hold departmental enquiry for the same offence for the reason that in a criminal trial, standard of proof is different and the case is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt but the same is not true in a departmental proceeding as such a strict proof of misconduct is not required therein.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ex. Constable Narender Kumar vs Lt. Governor And Ors. on 13 March, 2001

On the other hand the respondents' Counsel Sh. Rajinder Pandita has drawn our attention to a ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka and Anr. v. T. Venkataramanappa, 1996(6) SCC 455 wherein the petitioner who was acquitted from the charge under Section 494 IPC on the ground that the solemnisation of marriage had not been proved the Apex Court had modified the orders of the Tribunal and allowed the enquiry to be continued by observing that under Rule 28 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules strict standards as would warrant conviction for bigamy under Section 494 IPC may not, to begin with, be necessary. We have given careful consideration to the contention of the rival parties and also gone through the record. No doubt, it is true that the applicant had filled up the marriage form on 25.6.91 where it is stated that the applicant had married Suresh Bala on 24.9.90. The fact of the applicant applying for the marriage and getting the form filled is proved by the testimony of PW8, UDC of marriage branch Sh.R. P. Garg who had stated at serial No. 1255 of the register the marriage of applicant with Suresh Bala was shown to be solemnised on 24.9.90 is registered on 27.6.91 instead of being on 25.6.1991. There were signatures and photographs of the applicant and Suresh Bala on the file. There were also figuring the signature of Registrar on the marriage. We also find from the departmental record that Suresh Bala had written a letter to LIC on 17.7.91 requesting for change in status after marriage and further stating that as she had been married to the applicant on 24.9.90 her name in the official record be changed from Suresh Bala to Suresh Khatri. We also find from the record that Ms. Suresh Bala had filed a petition before the Additional District and Sessions Judge for dissolution of marriage under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act by filing an affidavit that the applicant had committed fraud as he was already married and having wife and child. HMA-477/93 was filed by Ms. Suresh Bala and the applicant was the respondent therein. Vide a decree dated 4.8.94 the marriage between the applicant and Suresh Bala was declared null and void on the basis of an exparte decree as the applicant failed to turn up. We have perused Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act where for a nullity of marriage being void Clauses 1, 4 and 5 of Sections of the Hindu Marriage Act are provided. We have also seen Section 5 and to our mind the decree in this case had been passed on the ground that one of the parties of the marriage had a spouse living at the time of the marriage. On this ground the marriage was dissolved. Thereafter, Suresh Bala had written to the LIC for change of her name on the basis of the decree of dissolution of marriage. While going through the findings of the enquiry officer and particularly the testimony of Woman Constable Munesh PW-9 who is the sister of Suresh Bala deposed that Suresh Bala had already died. The applicant reached their house and desired to marry Suresh Bala. It was further contended that in June, 1993 she was further married to one Amrish Kumar. While going to the testimony of DW-1 Ajit Kumar Sankla who was a witness of 'the applicant it had come on record that in April-May, 1992 the witness came to know about the marriage of he applicant with Suresh Bala from the certificate submitted by her. According to him he was told by Suresh Bala that she had solemnised marriage with Narender Khatri to save her name and reputation as she was pregnant. We are of the considered view that the ratio cited by the applicant's counsel is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as solemnisation of the marriage is to be proved according to the Hindu Rights, for the purpose of criminal proceedings for an offence under Section 494, IPC. In the departmental and as per Rule 20 of the Delhi Police Rules ibid the strict rule of evidence and Cr. PC are not applicable and the rule is pre-ponderence of probabilities. Apart from it, the marriage of the applicant with Sudesh is not disputed and as admitted by the applicant himself by contending that she is the only wife of the applicant and as the marriage contracted to marriage certificate is dissolved the marriage becomes void ab initio and he cannot be alleged to have contracted a second marriage, making him liable for any misconduct under Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. We do not agree with the contention of the applicant. It is not in dispute that the marriage was contracted by the applicant and got registered with the marriage office and at the time of filling up the requisite form it had been stated that the marriage had already been solemnised on 24.9.90 and as such on the basis of the photographs attached therein and on voluntary disclosure the marriage got registered. Later on the dissolution of marriage is not on the ground of non-performance of essential ceremony like 'saptbadi' or non-solemnisation of the marriage. But the marriage has been dissolved on the petition of Suresh Bala on the ground that the applicant was having one spouse living at the time of contracting marriage with the applicant and getting it registered. The important ingredient for a misconduct under Section 21 is that the delinquent Government servant had contracted second marriage despite existence of the first marriage. In the instant case the marriage with Sudesh is proved and admitted by the applicant and the fact that he married Suresh Bala on 24.9.90 is admitted even by the applicant at the time of getting the marriage registered. The fact of solemnisation of marriage though not proved from the ceremony of 'saptbadi' as prescribed under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act but yet from the conduct of the applicant as he himself voluntarily filled up the form is sufficient for the purpose of departmental enquiry to come to the conclusion of a misconduct against the applicant regarding contracting second marriage.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Dated This Thursday The 9Th Day Of August vs Union Of India on 9 August, 2012

In State of Karnataka v. T. Venkataramanappa, this Court held 15 OA.600/2000 that acquittal in a criminal case cannot be held to be a bar to hold departmental enquiry for the same misconduct for the reason that in a criminal trial, standard of proof is different as the case is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt but in the departmental proceeding, such a strict proof of misconduct is not required.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Janender Kumar vs Ut Police Chandigarh on 4 October, 2017

In a Nelson Motis Versus Union of India & Another., - AIR 1992 SC 1981, the Lordships have held that acquittal in acriminal cannot be held te be a bar to held departmental enquiry for the same misconduct for the reason that in a criminal trial, standard of proof is different as the case is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but in the ° (OA No. 483/CH/2012 ) departmental proceeding, such a strict proof of misconduct is not required, This view has subsequently been follawed in the case of State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. T Venkataramanappa { 1966) (6) SCC 455.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next