Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)
The Union Of India Through D.G vs Surajpat Paswan on 18 April, 2024 cites

G.M. Tank vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 10 April, 2006

64. There is no dispute about the fact that the judgment of conviction in the criminal proceeding have no bearing in the departmental proceeding but if the factual aspect of both the cases are so interlinked then certainly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat & Ors (supra), the same have the bearing upon the outcome of the departmental proceeding.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 352 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

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

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 Page 14 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 case will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 1683 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

M/S Stanzen Toyotetsu India P.Ltd vs Girish V & Ors on 21 January, 2014

37. It is settled proposition of law that the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding are two parallel proceedings having no bearing. However, a guideline has been laid down in the said judgment so as to consider the effect of criminal proceeding and in the departmental proceeding made linked on the proposition of law that if the nature of allegation is grave in nature and there is no likelihood of segregating the intent of allegation then the criminal case and the departmental proceeding is to go parallel.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 289 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Gyan Chand Chattar on 28 May, 2009

In the course of the submissions, the respondents placed reliance on the decision in Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar [Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 129] . In that case, six charges were framed against the respondent. One of the charges was that he demanded a commission of 1% for paying the railway staff. The enquiry officer found all the six charges proved. The disciplinary authority agreed with those findings and imposed the punishment of reversion to a lower rank. Allowing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court observed that there was no evidence to hold that he was guilty of the charge of bribery since the witnesses only said that the motive/reason for not making the payment could be the expectation of a commission amount. The respondent placed reliance on the following passages from the decision : (SCC pp. 85 & 87, paras 21 & 31) Page 17 "21. Such a serious charge of corruption requires to be proved to the hilt as it brings both civil and criminal consequences upon the employee concerned. He would be liable to be prosecuted and would also be liable to suffer severest penalty awardable in such cases. Therefore, such a grave charge of quasi-criminal nature was required to be proved beyond the shadow of doubt and to the hilt. It cannot be proved on mere probabilities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 229 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Amalendu Ghosh vs North Eastern Railway (By The District ... on 15 January, 1960

42. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Amalendu Ghosh v. North Eastern Railway [AIR 1960 SC 992] , held that the purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry in respect of a particular alleged misconduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima facie, to know as to whether the alleged misconduct has been committed and on the basis of the findings recorded in preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment can be passed. It may be used only to take a view as to whether a regular disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent is required to be held.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 26 - Full Document
1   2 Next