Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
Inspr. Rameshwar Khatri S/O Dharam ... vs Government Of Nctd Through on 10 December, 2009 cites

Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State ... vs Mohd. Yousuf Miya Etc on 20 November, 1996

(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 324 - Full Document

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors vs T.Srinivas on 5 August, 2004

Reference is also to the judgment of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra) and the law laid down therein. The SO appears to have been issued in obedience to the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the two decisions as mentioned above. Even though, pleaded that vide the SO aforesaid the departmental proceedings ought to have been stayed, but the learned counsel during the course of arguments could not pin point anything from the SO which may debar departmental proceedings. The settled law on the issue involved in the present case appears to be that each case has to be examined and it is the facts and circumstances of each case which have to be taken into consideration to decide whether departmental proceedings should be stayed. There is no straitjacket formula. We may only mention that even smallest issues are debatable, but what really has to be looked into is as to whether such debatable questions have complications and are really vexed questions of law and fact. Feasibility, desirability or propriety has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. The mere fact that deposition of a witness may not be accepted for variety of reasons, and in the present case, that the witnesses are themselves accused in the kidney transplant racket, or that such of the persons from whom the applicants might have extorted money are not witnesses in departmental enquiry, does not appear to be a complicated question of fact and law. Surely the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority would go into all these aspects of the case. Only supposition at the end of the applicants that the department may not be able to prove charges against them on the basis of witnesses and documents, cannot be stated to be a complicated question of fact and law. Further, in our considered view when the criminal trials are likely to take long time for variety of reasons and primarily, because of heavy pendency in courts, the employees facing charges such as extortion of money or taking bribe, should rather be put through departmental enquiry as early as possible so that if they are innocent, their names are cleared and if they are actually guilty, to quit service. Extortion of money and accepting bribe may not stand on different footing inasmuch as, bribe may be given by the concerned person voluntarily, whereas extortion of money may be on threats extended by the employee. In the SO relied upon by the applicants, in fact we find that it is specifically said that where police officers are facing criminal proceedings especially under Prevention of Corruption act or cases where moral turpitude is involved, departmental enquiry proceedings can also be initiated simultaneously and should not be kept/held in abeyance due to pendency of such criminal proceedings, even if evidence in both the proceedings may be the same. We find nothing wrong in the SO. In fact, bribery or extortion of money, which as mentioned above, may have very little difference, need to be probed by the department as early as possible. Corruption is eating into the very vitals of the society. Such persons need not be kept in service awaiting result of criminal trial for years and years, as that demoralizes everyone concerned. If the department may have proceeded in a case which may have no legs to stand, it is good for the employee that he steers clear as early as possible. It is for his benefit, as otherwise he would be looked down upon by everyone.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 153 - Full Document

The Delhi Cloth And General Mills Ltd. vs Kushal Bhan on 10 March, 1960

3. We have heard the learned counsel representing the applicants and with his assistance examined the records of the case. The settled law on the issue is that departmental proceedings and proceedings in criminal case can proceed simultaneously and there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously. If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature, which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. The Honble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. [AIR 199 SC 1416], after taking into consideration the entire case law starting from Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v Kushal Bhan [(1960 3 SCR 227] up to Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v Mohd. Ysuf Miyan [(1997) 2 SCC 699], culled out the following principles:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1