Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 148 (1.20 seconds)
Documents citing Chairman-Cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. Corpn. ... vs K. Meerabai on 23 January, 2006

Mani vs Group Commandant on 10 April, 2007

38. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the decision T.N.C.S.Corpn. Ltd., v. K.Meerabai, reported in 2006 (2) SCC 255, a criminal proceeding is different from departmental enquiry, with regard to standards of proof required. In a criminal case, unless the guilt against a person is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, one cannot be punished and the benefit of doubt should be given only to the accused, but in the departmental enquiry, it is not so, in the departmental enquiry, it is clear that preponderance of probability is sufficient to prove the charges. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the criminal court has acquitted the accused, only by giving benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant. Therefore, it cannot be construed as a Honourable acquittal.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ganesh Mahto vs The Chairman, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank ... on 12 September, 2025

28. This Court is of the considered view that the Enquiry Officer or the Inquiry Authority can hold a charge to be proved only when there is some credible evidence on record to support such a conclusion. In the present case, there is a complete absence of any substantive evidence to sustain the charges levelled against the petitioner. The findings recorded are vague, unsubstantiated, and unsupported by any material on record. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by the respondent-Bank are concerned, they are distinguishable on facts and do not come to the aid of the respondents in the present case. The judgement referred by the respondent -Bank are as follows ; Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (supra); Disciplinary Authority-cum- Regional Manager vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik(supra); State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Bela Bagchi & Ors.(supra); T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. And Ors. vs. K. Meerabai (supra); State Bank of India and Ors. vs. T. J. Paul (supra); Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah and Ors. Vs.. Hoti Lal and Anr. (supra) ; Lalit Popli vs. Canara Bank & Ors., and decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in W.P. No. 3096 of 2008, titled Pranab Kumar Bhuyan vs. United Bank of Patna High Court CWJC No.3043 of 2017 dt...12-09-2025 18/20 India & Ors.
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Anshuman - Full Document

M.Mani vs Management Of Bharat Heavy on 16 April, 2007

In the decision, T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd., v. K.Meerabai, reported in 2006 (2) SCC 255, the Honble Supreme Court of India, has ruled that departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings are quite distinct and dissimilar and the standards of proof, required in a criminal case and departmental proceeding are also different and that the scope of review is limited, with regard to departmental proceeding. As per the said rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court, interference of this Court would not be warranted, unless the orders passed by the quasi-judicial authorities are clearly unreasonable or perverse or manifestly illegal and grossly unjust.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt.Vijay Laxmi Wife Of Surinderjit vs Punjab National Bank And Another on 12 August, 2010

19. An identical question arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases T.N.C.S.Corpn. Ltd. and others v. K.Meerabai (2006) 2 Supreme Court 255 and Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Narender Singh (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 265. Having considered the matter deeply, it was ruled that "the standards of proof require in a criminal proceeding are entirely different than that of departmental disciplinary action and acquittal in criminal Court not by itself is a ground not to initiate or drop departmental proceedings. The criminal as well as departmental proceedings can go simultaneously."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M S Sullar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next