Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Abdul Hakim Ahmad vs Dist. Supdt. Of Police And Ors. on 31 January, 1977

Kiritsinh Mohobatsinh Brahmbhatt vs State Of Gujarat on 8 December, 2000

"5. In the instant case though the charge in the departmental proceedings is not that the petitioner had committed offences punishable under Section 66(1)(b) and 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and Ss. 110 and 117 of the Bombay Police Act, the charge is founded on the same facts. In the case before the learned Magistrate the allegation was that the petitioner had consumed liquor and he had misbehaved with co-passenger under the influence of liquor. There is no charge regarding consumption of liquor or misbehavior under influence of liquor in the departmental proceedings but the charge is confined to misbehaving with co-passenger. In other words, both in the prosecution and the departmental proceedings the common charge is regarding misbehaving with the co-passenger. The witnesses who were examined in the trial and the departmental proceedings were the same and except the evidence with regard to consumption of liquor the evidence on which the charge in the departmental proceedings is founded is also the same. There very same evidence which was appreciated by the learned Magistrate and which was found unreliable by him is tendered in the departmental proceedings to prove the charge of misbehavior against the petitioner. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the charge against the petitioner is held to be proved on re-appreciation of the same evidence and material which was before the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the case of the petitioner would squarely fall within the ratio of the decision of this Court in Abdul Hakim's case (Supra). It is not open to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority to take the view contrary to the judicial view taken by the Court of law on the basis of re-appreciation of the same oral evidence. In fact, after his acquittal by the learned Magistrate disciplinary proceedings, even if initiated, could not have been continued against the petitioner. In any case the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority could not have found the petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him on the basis of the same evidence. The court of law having examined the evidence and found it to be unreliable on the same evidence, the petitioner can not be held guilty of the charge of misbehavior, which was part of the charge on which the petitioner was prosecuted before the learned Magistrate.
Gujarat High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Solanki Laxmansing Kesarising vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 19 October, 1993

16. Reliance is placed by learned Advocate, Mr. P.B. Majmudar, on the decision of this Court, in the case of Abdul Hakim v. District Superintendent of Police, (1978) XIX GLR 210. The said decision of this Court is not helpful to substantiate his plea that the departmental inquiry was barred in the present case. In that decision, it is held that, on the very same charge, departmental proceedings were sought to be started against the delinquent and such a course is not permissible and open to the department, as it would tantamount to sitting in appeal over the decision of the Criminal Court arrived at on evidence on the very same charge.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Chandrakant Raoji Gaonkar vs Bombay Port Trust & Ors. on 3 March, 1995

Similarly in the case of Abdul Hakim Ahmad v. Dist. Superintendent of Police & Ors. reported in GLR 1978 (Vol. XIX), a similar question arose. It has been held by the Gujarat High Court with which I respectfully, agree, that in such cases the heart of the problem is not in the matter of standard of proof by nature of evidence. The Gujarat High Court, has held that on the basis of the same material and on the basis of reappreciation of the same evidence which was there before the Criminal Court, without anything more, it is not open to the Disciplinary Authority to take a contrary view and if that is permitted than it would render the judicial system nugatory. The proposition that on the same material and reappreciation of the same evidence it is open to the Disciplinary Authority to take contrary view would affect the power of judicial review being taken by the Competent Court of Law and if this was accepted as a true proposition of law, if would undermine the respect for the judicial administration by the Competent Court. The true proposition of law, according to the Gujarat High Court in the above judgment is that, where the departmental proceedings cannot be entertained as a matter of course without anything more and where the Competent Court of law has acquitted the delinquent then it is not open to the Inquiry Officer to reappreciate the same evidence and the same material and the same grounds and take a contrary view but if in the domestic inquiry an independent evidence can be established and if an independent proof be show then certainly it is open to the Management to proceed with the Disciplinary Inquiry. In the said Judgment it has been further held that the question of standard of proof of degree of proof in departmental inquiry as distinguished from the criminal proceedings is totally irrelevant in the context of appreciation of oral evidence and in the context of credibility of a witness. These will not depend on the entire of inquiry. These will not depend on the form of inquiry. If the evidence is uninspiring and that evidence is found to be uninspiring by the Criminal Court, the same cannot be once against reappreciated by the Inquiry Officer in the domestic inquiry.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Gunaji Bhikaji Masavkar vs The Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust on 22 December, 2025

In Abdul Hakim Ahmad v. District Superintendent of Police 1978 CLR, Their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court held that on the basis of the same material and on the basis of re-appreciation of same evidence which was there before the criminal court, without anything more it is not open to the disciplinary authority to take contrary view and if this is permitted then it would render the judicial system nugatory."
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Thakore Chandrasingh Taktsingh vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 28 December, 1984

The criminal court had no occasion to pronounce upon such conduct and to decide whether such a person can be permitted to continue in the police department. That was the function entirely of the departmental authorities which they have performed in the present case. They would have failed in their duty if they had ignored such conduct of the petitioner and had refused to look into the matter departmentally. The ration of the decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Hakim (supra), therefore, cannot apply to the facts of the present case. In fact, the very para of the circular dated 25th July, 1968 extracted earlier indicates that if the departmental proceedings are based on the allegations which were not examined by the criminal court, it would be open to the departmental authority to initiate proceedings in connection with these allegations. The said circular as seen earlier has been referred to, with approval, by M. P. Thakkar, J, in the aforesaid decision. The present is a case which directly fits in with that part of the said circular. It was, therefore, open to the departmental authorities to take proper steps against the petitioner departmentally and to punish him in accordance with law. The first contention of Mr. Trivedi, therefore, stands repelled.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S B Majmudar - Full Document
1