Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)Section 4 in The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr on 30 March, 1999
In the case of M. Paul Anthony (supra) also, the Honble Supreme Court had held that departmental proceedings and criminal case can go on simultaneously but in the cited case the ex-parte departmental proceedings were not sustained by the Honble Court because in that case, both the proceedings were on the same set of facts, which was sought to be proved by the same witnesses whereas in the case in hand, the charges in criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings, as pointed out by the respondents, are different. Moreover, it is not an ex parte disciplinary inquiry in which same order has been passed.
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Nelson Motis vs Union Of India And Another on 2 September, 1992
8. The applicant in his counter arguments on legal issues states that Nelson Motis case (supra) is not applicable here as in that case, the facts in criminal trial and departmental inquiry were different.
The State Of Karnataka & Anr vs T. Venkatramanappa on 20 September, 1996
As regards the judgment in T. Venkataramanappa (supra), it is stated that the issue involved in departmental inquiry was for contracting a second marriage and in criminal trial for bigamy, therefore, that case is also not applicable here.
Ajit Kumar Nag vs General Manager (Pj), Indian Oil ... on 6 February, 2004
9. We have looked at the facts and examined the law cited by both the sides. On the issue of res-judicata raised by the respondents we find that the earlier Writ Petition cited by the respondents pertained to promotion whereas the present OA is primarily about the disciplinary proceeding. Thus, principle of res-judicata does not apply. On the issue of non-maintainability of disciplinary proceeding in view of his acquittal in the criminal case, we find that when the criminal case commenced, the department did not proceed with the disciplinary proceedings awaiting the outcome of the criminal case. Only when the final order in the criminal case was passed, did the department commence the departmental inquiry again. We feel that the law settled in Nelson Motis, T. Venkataramanappa, K. Allabakash and Ajit Kumar Nag (supra) is basically whether the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial can go on simultaneously and the settled legal proposition seems to be that it can. Secondly, the settled law also is that acquittal of a person in a criminal case does not automatically mean that the disciplinary proceedings cannot go on as the nature and scope of criminal case is very different from that of disciplinary proceeding.
1