Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.03 seconds)
The Deputy Superintendent Of Police vs W.D.Sekaran on 9 November, 2005 cites

The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By The ... vs H.A. Munaff, Anna Nagar West, Chennai ... on 26 February, 2002

15. In the light of our discussion, it is clear that it is not axiomatic that in all cases where the criminal proceedings based on the very same set of facts ended in acquittal, the departmental action should not be proceeded with. As rightly observed by the earlier Division Bench of this Court in 2002-III-L.L.J. 66 (STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. H.A.MUNAF AND ANOTHER) cited supra, if the acquittal in the criminal proceeding is not a honourable one, it is always open to proceed with the departmental proceedings. The Tribunal has not gone into the above relevant aspects and committed an error in quashing the charge memo at the threshold.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 11 - F M Kalifulla - Full Document

Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs And ... vs Tahir Ali Khan Tyagi on 22 April, 2002

520) (SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ANOTHER Vs. TAHIR ALI KHAN TYAGI). The question that was posed before the Supreme Court was whether the departmental proceeding could be initiated after acquittal in the criminal proceeding and whether Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, would stand as a bar for initiation of such proceedings. The following conclusion of Their Lordships are relevant:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 44 - B Kumar - Full Document

Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr on 30 March, 1999

13. Learned counsel for the first respondent, by drawing our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court (1999) 3 SCC 679 (M.PAUL ANTHONY Vs. BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD.), would submit that since the charge memo is based on the criminal proceedings, in view of the acquittal by the orders of the learned Magistrate, the Department is not entitled to proceed further and the Tribunal is fully justified in interfering even at the stage of the charge memo. In the light of the said contention, we have gone through the factual details available in that case. Though it is brought to our notice that the facts and evidence in department as well as in criminal proceedings were the same, without there being any iota of difference as in Paul Anthony's case as pointed out above, there was no decision by the criminal Court on merits. Hence, we are of the view that the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the first respondent is not helpful to his stand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 1683 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Thenmozhi (Ms.) vs Chairman And Managing Director Of ... on 8 February, 2005

"8. It is well settled that on the same charges when there is a criminal proceeding as well as a domestic enquiry, merely because the workman is found innocent in the criminal case, it does not mean that he cannot be found guilty in the departmental/domestic enquiry vide Thenmozhi v. The Chairman & Managing Director, Neyveli Lignite Corporation in W.A.Nos.202 and 203 of 2005 dated 8.2.2005. "
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - M Katju - Full Document

Union Of India vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 24 March, 2004

12. Learned Additional Government Pleader has also placed reliance on another Division Bench decision reported in (2005) 4 M.L.J. 104 ( UNION OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL), wherein the Division Bench has held that in a Departmental enquiry, the guilt can be arrived at on the preponderance of probability. The Division Bench held that the appreciation of evidence is the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority, to consider the evidence on record and to render findings, whether charges have been proved or not.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - M K Vinayagam - Full Document
1