Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 335 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Ajit Kumar Nag vs General Manager (Pj), Indian Oil ... on 6 February, 2004

Harish Chandra Yadav vs C.A.T Lucknow And 3 Ors. on 7 April, 2017

21. In Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale (D) Thr. L.Rs. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (supra), Court referred to its earlier judgment in Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager I.O.C. (supra) and said that two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. The object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment upon offender, while purpose of disciplinary inquiry proceeding is to deal with delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service rules. In a criminal trial incriminating statement made by accused in certain circumstances or before certain Officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record commission of delinquency. Rule relating to appreciation of evidence in two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on prosecution and unless prosecution is able to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a Court of law. In a departmental inquiry, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent Officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability. Court then further said "acquittal of appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from liability under disciplinary jurisdiction of Corporation".
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi), Rep. By The General ... vs The Registrar, Central Administrative ... on 20 June, 2007

28. We have no quarrel with the proposition laid down by the Apex court in the above case. The Tribunal, relying on the said judgement, has held that there is no infirmity in the action of the respondents who had dispensed with the inquiry leading to dismissal, forgetting the bottom line of the above judgement that 'it is the officer on the spot who is the best judge of the situation....' Admittedly, the person who signed the dismissal order, viz. the third respondent herein, was not present at the scene of occurrence and as said above, no reason, as mandated under Rule 14(ii) itself, has been assigned in the impugned order of dismissal for dispensing with the enquiry.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

No.9132232519 vs Union Of India on 7 July, 2020

While we were considering of applying the principle of GM Tank (supra) due care has been taken in respect of the decisions of MD. Yousuf Miah (supra) and Ajit Kumar Nag (supra) as extensively referred in Shasi Bhusan Prasad (supra). We have considered the element of "degree of proof" in both the proceeding. Such facts become relevant, when the acquittal has been recorded on appreciation of evidence by the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". The charge in the criminal case and the departmental proceeding to the extent of scuffle and using the service weapon leading to a murder of Head Constable of Tripura Police are no doubt identical. Mr. Deb, learned ASG did not make any attempt to distinguish the facts so far the charges under Article -IX is concerned. This is the only charge which is apparently Page 47 of 50 identical to the charge of the criminal case. In view of the finding of the Gauhati High Court, this court is of the view that the said charge in the departmental action cannot be sustained. Hence, the same is set aside. So far the other three charges are concerned viz. Articles-IX, X and XII, this court would not interfere, as on perusal of the evidence from the records of departmental proceeding, no infirmity can be located.
Tripura High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A. Subramanian vs The Director-General Of on 22 June, 2009

35. Further, the petitioner was charged under Rule 24 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers' Conduct Rules, 1973 for his conduct as an investigating officer between 24.6.1995 to 27.6.1995 resulting in the trap proceedings. As observed by the Apex Court in Ajit Kumar's case (cited supra) and other decisions, strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond reasonable doubt", he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, finding of guilt and consequent penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of probability". The facts of the present case squarely falls within the said parameters.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R Sudhakar - Full Document

T. Thothathri And T.S. Venkatesan vs The Management, Sundaram Textiles ... on 17 September, 2007

27. The appellant in Hari Pada Khan relied upon Hindustan Steel Ltd. (II) and submitted that in that case, this Court struck down a similar provision being violative of natural justice and also violative of Article 14. The Court, however, held that the principles of natural justice had no application when the authority was of the opinion that it would be inexpedient to hold an enquiry and it would be against the interest of security of the Corporation to continue in employment the offender workman when serious acts were likely to affect the foundation of the institution.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - F M Kalifulla - Full Document

Mahendra Singh Bharti vs Union Of India on 19 January, 2022

"18. The exposition has been further affirmed by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia and Others , this Court held as under: "As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would 9 W.P. No.13579/2008 not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond reasonable doubt", he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other 4 2005(7) SCC 764 hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of probability". Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - N Dubey - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next