Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)
30 April vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 30 April, 2026 cites

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

19. He submits that in the present case, charge against petitioner in criminal trial was different from the charge in Disciplinary Enquiry. He submits that in disciplinary proceedings, charge was that he played fraud upon the authorities by mentioning incorrect date of birth which he knew was false, while in criminal trial, scope of enquiry was different. He relies upon para 28 to 30 of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme 8 2026:UHC:3309-DB Court in the case of G.M. Tank (supra), which are extracted below:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 352 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

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

"28. This Court in Depot Manager, A.P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya [(1997) 2 SCC 699 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 548] in para 8 held as under: (SCC pp. 704-05) "The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty, the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public (sic duty), as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Evidence Act. Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. ... Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. In this case, ... the charge is failure to anticipate the accident and prevention thereof. It has nothing to do with the culpability of the offence under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC. Under these circumstances, the High Court was not right in staying the proceedings."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 324 - Full Document
1   2 Next