Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.24 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ajit Kumar Nag vs G.M.(P.J.)Indian Oil Corporation. ... on 19 September, 2005
(b) What is observed by the Apex Court in AJIT
KUMAR NAG vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
9. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's
order dated 09.01.2025 commenced its analysis by
establishing the jurisprudential framework governing the
judicial review of Departmental Enquiries, drawing upon
the seminal decision in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of
India & Others, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749, which
authoritatively delineates the constitutional boundaries of
interference in disciplinary matters. The Tribunal correctly
emphasized that judicial review is not an appellate re-
examination of evidence but a limited supervisory
jurisdiction to ensure compliance with fundamental
principles of natural justice and the absence of
jurisdictional errors.
Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State ... vs Mohd. Yousuf Miya Etc on 20 November, 1996
NC: 2025:KHC:12937-DB
WP No. 7559 of 2025
the Criminal Court judgment, which specifically used the
phrase "benefit of doubt" rather than a finding of complete
exaggeration. The Tribunal correctly applied the ratio in
Depot Manager, A.P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya &
Others, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 699, which holds that
an acquittal based on 'benefit of doubt' does not operate
as res judicata in Departmental Proceedings owing to the
different standards of proof.
State Of Haryana vs Balwant Singh on 4 March, 2003
In a way, this can be likened to doctrine of
double jeopardy, constitutionally enacted in Article
20(2); the Apex Court in a catena of decisions has
applied the same even in disciplinary proceedings
eg., STATE OF HARYANA vs. BALWANT SINGH,
(2003) 3 SCC 362. This vital aspect has not figured
in the consideration of petitioner's case at the
hands of disciplinary authority. Alas, Tribunal too
missed it. This constitutes yet another lacuna in the
impugned orders.
Major Robert Stuart Wauchope vs Emperor on 24 August, 1933
(b) The concept of 'honourable acquittal' is easy
to say, but difficult to employ, there being no
statutory definition thereof, more particularly in the
IPC, Cr.PC & Indian Evidence Act. Lord Williams, J.
in ROBERT STUART WAUCHOPE vs. EMPEROR
(1934) 61 ILR Cal.168 observed: "The expression
'honourably acquitted' is one which is unknown to
The State Of Karnataka vs Umesh on 22 March, 2022
14. The juridical distinction between criminal trials
and departmental enquiries forms the bedrock of
administrative law. As expounded in judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Umesh in Civil
Appeal Nos.1763-1764 of 2022 decided on 22.03.2022 by
the full Bench as these proceedings operate in parallel but
distinct universes - while criminal law focuses on
reformative justice through the prism of penal
consequences, departmental enquiries serve the
preventive and reformative purpose of maintaining
institutional integrity. This dichotomy is rooted in offering
standards of proof, the criminal standard of "proof beyond
reasonable doubt" V/s. the civil standard of
"preponderance of probability" applicable to departmental
matters.
Maqbool Hussain vs The State Of Bombay.Jagjit Singhv.The ... on 17 April, 1953
NC: 2025:KHC:12937-DB
WP No. 7559 of 2025
in a narrow technical sense. The Constitution Bench in
Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, reported in
(1953) 1 SCC 736, established that, it applies only when
there is prosecution and punishment for the same offence
before a Court of competent jurisdiction. Departmental
proceedings, being administrative in nature, do not
constitute "prosecution" under this constitutional
provision.