Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 2459 (4.76 seconds)
Documents citing Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr on 30 March, 1999

Aejaz Hussain vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors on 29 May, 2020

31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the 21 decision in Paul Anthony case [(1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 810] will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed."
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

P.Chinnadurai vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 27 January, 2012

25. Further, such facts and evidence in the departmental as well as the criminal proceedings being one and the same, without there being any iota of difference, the petitioner/delinquent/accused should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable in the case on hand. Though the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the Court, and when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the departmental proceedings, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision is the case of the Apex Court reported in 1999 (3) SCC 679 = 1999 SCC (L & S) 810 (Cap. M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.) (cited supra).
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 2 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

Upendra R. Shah vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 16 April, 2015

28. It is next submitted that in  K.D.Desai v. High   Court of Gujarat (supra), the judgments relied  upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner  in  G.M.Tank   v.   State   of   Gujarat     (supra)  and  Capt. M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.   (supra),   have   been   considered.   Further,   the  Rules considered in the said judgment are  pari  materia with the Rules, 2002.
Gujarat High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - A Kumari - Full Document

Sukhu Ram vs State Of U.P.& 3 Ors. on 9 March, 2018

Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited as reported in 1999 (3) SCC 679. It was further stated by the petitioner that since the petitioner has already superannuated from his services on 30.11.2004 no recovery or deductions could be made from the pension or post retiral benefits of the petitioner by placing reliance upon the provisions contained in Regulation 351A of the Civil Service Regulations. Further more the manner in which the enquiry proceedings were conducted by the Enquiry Officer were also challenged by the petitioner.
Allahabad High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

H.P. Nagaralkar vs The Secretary, Union Of India (Uoi) And ... on 14 September, 2005

We carefully examined whether there is a complicated question to be decided by the Court. In criminal case there are 229 documents and 38 witnesses are referred. Same set of documents and witnesses are referred in the charge memo dated 5.01.2004. In the charge memo only 60 documents and 29 witnesses are referred. In both the proceedings when similar witnesses are referred, we applied the judgment relied on by the applicant in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case. As we have considered the contentions urged by both sides and we do not find any complicated question of law involved and also complicated questions of facts to be decided on the documents referred in both the proceedings. Even if the applicant discloses his defence in the departmental inquiry it will not prejudice his defence in the criminal case. The criminal case is to be decided by the Court in a judicial proceedings on the charges instituted for criminal offence punishable under various sections of IPC and under the Prevention of Corruption Act. As stated earlier, the offence in the charge sheet is that the applicant while working as Telecom District Engineer, Bidar during the period from April 1998 to May 2000 committed misconducts contravening Rule 3(1)(i) and (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Four other accused were also involved in the criminal case. Accused No. 2 is G. Sathyanarayana, working as Accounts Officer, DOO, Bidar Telecom, Bidar from 1997 to 1999, accused No. 3 is C.H. Satish Kumar, Proprietor of four fictitious firms, accused No. 4 is Sri P. Shanmugam working as General Manager (Operations), Karnataka Telecom Circle, Bangalore, accused No. 5 is Sri M.H. Jaba, working as Telecom District Engineer, Bidar Telecom, Bidar, accused No. 6 is Sri Venugopala working as Telecom District Engineer, Bidar and Accused No. 7 is Chenshetty Basavaraj working as Sub-Divisional Engineer. It is alleged that applicant who is accused No. 1, A2, A4 to A9 entered into criminal conspiracy with accused No. 3 during the period 1997 to 2000 in the matter of procuring telecom materials for Bidar Telecom, Bidar at exorbitant prices. In the memorandum of charge dated 5.01.2004 the charge is that the applicant was functioning as Telecom District Engineer, Bidar during the period from April 1998 to May 2000 resorted to irregular local purchase of various stocked and non-stocked items of stores from four fictitious firms floated by one Sri Satish Kumar at exorbitant rates on the basis of quotations/tenders finalized by other units; without inviting tenders as required: without obtaining non-availability certificates from Circle Telecom Stores Depot, Bangalore in the case of stocked items; far in excess of the prescribed annual financial limits; in the absence of requirement or provision in sanctioned estimate; after splitting up the purchases with the mala fide intention of bringing each bill within his financial powers, in violation of Rule 104 of General Financial Rules, 1963; and irregularly obtained sanction in form Eng-27 from Sri P. Shanmugam, the then General Manager (Operations) for purchases worth Rs. 11,28,569.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M Venkatesh Murthy vs The Additional Chief Secretary To The ... on 19 December, 2023

31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the department as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthony's case will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed."
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - P S Kumar - Full Document

Sk Mahaboob Basha vs M/O Railways on 7 January, 2025

10. Central Govt. policy, as laid down in the DoP&T OMs, referred to above, as well as judicial pronouncements discussed in the foregoing paras comprehensively answer the issue and clarify the point that there is no bar on Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next