Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.37 seconds)Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr on 30 March, 1999
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 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 (supra) will
apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be
allowed.
R.P. Kapur vs Union Of India And Anr on 19 November, 1963
In R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India (supra), a Constitution Bench of
this Court observed:
Ajit Kumar Nag vs General Manager (Pj), Indian Oil ... on 6 February, 2004
In the case of Ajit Kumar Nag vs. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn.
Limited, Haldia & Ors., (supra) , this Court in paragraph 11 held as under:
Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State ... vs Mohd. Yousuf Miya Etc on 20 November, 1996
This Court in the case of Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corpn.
Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya & Ors., (supra), in paragraph 8 held as under:
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs S. Sree Rama Rao on 10 April, 1963
The Judgment in the case of State of A.P. & Ors. Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao
(supra), was cited for the purpose that the High Court is not constituted in a proceeding
under Art. 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities
holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant, it is concerned to determine
whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to
the procedure prescribed in that behalf and whether the rules of natural justice are not
violated.
Management Of Krishnakali Tea Estate vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 10 September, 2004
In the case of Krishnakali Tea Estate vs. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor
Sangh & Anr. , (Supra), it was argued before this Court on behalf of the respondent
Sangh that the Labour Court ought not to have brushed aside the finding of the criminal
Court which according to the learned single Judge "honourably" acquitted the accused
workmen of the offence before it. The learned Judges were taken through the
judgment of the Criminal Court. The Bench was of the opinion that the acquittal by the
Criminal Court was `honourable' as it was based on the fact that the prosecution did not
produce sufficient material to establish its charge which was clear from the following
observations found in the judgment of the criminal Court :