Union Of India And Ors vs Jaipal Singh on 3 November, 2003
Reliance was next placed on 2004(1) SCC 121
(Union of India & Ors versus Jaipal Singh) at paragraph 4:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.25 seconds)Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.& Ors vs Nathu Ram on 23 November, 2009
This Court finds it difficult to hold that on
exoneration by the criminal court, the respondent was
automatically entitled to back wages under Rule 97 and 99 of
the Bihar Service Code. The Code deals with the conduct of
departmental proceedings and considers cases of detention
when departmental proceedings are held. The Appellants
have not issued any circular of the nature noticed in the case
of Jaipur Vidyut Nigam(supra) adopting the Code by fiction to
a case of criminal conviction and acquittal.
Brahma Chandra Gupta vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 29 November, 1983
Placing reliance on AIR 1984 SC 380 (Brahma
Chandra Gupta versus Union of India) paragraph No. 6, it
was urged that the Supreme Court, as a measure of socio
economic justice, after acquittal by the criminal Court,
directed for payment of full salary consequent to
reinstatement in a prosecution under Section 19(f) of the
Indian Arms Act and Section 5 of the Explosive Substance
Act.
Union Of India Etc. Etc vs K.V. Jankiraman Etc. Etc on 27 August, 1991
The case of "Janki Raman" (supra) relied upon
by the respondent related to a case of departmental
proceeding. It was primarily dealing with issues of procedure
9
to be followed in a departmental proceeding including that of
sealed cover consideration for promotion. The lis therein was
not in context of a criminal proceeding and acquittal. The
reference to the criminal case was only a passing observation
on the different kinds of consideration that may arise with
regard to a challenge to a departmental proceeding and the
punishment passed thereunder.
State Of U.P. & Anr vs Ved Pal Singh & Anr on 7 October, 1996
The Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 608(State
of U.P. and another versus Ved Pal Singh and another)
considered a claim for back wages of the respondent who was
removed from service on conviction by a criminal Court in an
offence under Section 409 IPC but was later acquitted of the
charges. It was held in the relevant extract of paragraph 4 as
follows.
Hukmi Chand vs Jhabua Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., ... on 1 October, 1997
In 1998 ( 2 ) SCC 291 (Hukmi Chand Vs Jhabua
Cooperative Central Bank Limited), it has been held at
paragraph 7 as follows:
Banshi Dhar vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 31 October, 2006
In 2007(1) SCC 324(Banshi Dhar versus State
of Rajasthan and another) the appellant was charged for
having made a demand for illegal gratification leading to a
case by the Anti Corruption Department. A trap was laid and
he was found to have accepted illegal gratification. He was
prosecuted under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act read with Section 161 of the Penal Code.
Conviction followed. He was dismissed from service. He
preferred an appeal against conviction. The appeal was
allowed and he stood acquitted.
The Manager, Reserve Bank Of India vs S. Mani And Ors. on 25 June, 2002
10. It is now a trite law that judgment of
acquittal itself would not have exonerated him of the
charges levelled against him. He could have been
proceeded against in a departmental proceeding. (See
Manager, Reserve Bank of India v. S. Mani and
Commr. Of Police v. Narender Singh.)
Commissioner Of Police, New Delhi vs Narender Singh on 5 April, 2006
10. It is now a trite law that judgment of
acquittal itself would not have exonerated him of the
charges levelled against him. He could have been
proceeded against in a departmental proceeding. (See
Manager, Reserve Bank of India v. S. Mani and
Commr. Of Police v. Narender Singh.)
M/S. Retu Marbles vs Prabhakant Shukla on 3 December, 2009
Considering the evolution of judicial thinking on
this aspect, it has been held in 2010(2) SCC 70 (Reetu
Marbles versus Prabhakant Shukla) at paragraph 15 and
16 as follows.