Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)
Chacko Eapen vs Union Of India And Others (Oa No. 557 Of ... on 8 February, 2012 cites

State Of W.B vs Mohammed Khalid on 24 November, 1994

15. Now, the question is when is the stage of investigation over in criminal cases. It is to be seen from the above clause 2(iv), relates to 'investigation on serious allegations of corruption, bribery or similar grave misconduct is in progress either by the CBI or any other agency, departmental or otherwise'. Investigation could be (a) either by the CBI or other Agencies (eg. CVC etc), or departmental or otherwise. The term 'otherwise' obviously includes the investigation stage in the court. Now, the question is as to what is the stage upto which, the stage of investigation continues in the Court. Answer to this question is available in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of W.B. Vs Mohd. Khalid (1995) 1 SCC 684 wherein the Apex Court has stated as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 243 - S Mohan - Full Document

Delhi Development Authority vs H.C. Khurana on 7 April, 1993

19. In disciplinary proceedings, it is after issue of charge sheet that the delinquent officer is termed as the 'charged officer' and similarly it is after charges are framed that the alleged offender is termed as 'the accused'. Sealed Cover Procedure is adopted when the stage of issue of charge sheet is reached See Delhi Development Authority vs H.C. Khurana [(1993) 3 SCC 196 ].
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 131 - J S Verma - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Sangram Keshari Nayak on 27 April, 2007

21. Now in so far as the relief claimed in this case, the applicants have claimed that the sealed cover shall be got opened and acted upon. In fact, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the applicants for promotion without resorting to the sealed cover procedure. In fact, some of the juniors have already been promoted as the sealed cover procedure had been followed in the case of the applicants. Thus, on the date when DPC was held and also when the juniors were promoted, the contingency the happening of which sealed cover procedure could be adopted, had not occurred in the case of the applicants. Thus, the clock has to be set back and action taken. For the Apex Court has held in the case of Union of India vs Sangram Keshari Nayak (2007) 6 SCC 704 that for adopting the sealed cover procedure, conditions for adopting the sealed cover procedure must have existed at the material point of time. Thus, even if the charges are framed in the near future, the same shall not affect the process of opening the sealed cover and acting on the same. In respect of this part of the order, though the earlier order is slightly different, the same may not be taken to mean that the other order is overruled as this part of the order is only with reference to awarding of relief, which is certainly the discretion (judicious) of the Bench.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 180 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next