Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.33 seconds)B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
(b) In (1995) 6 SCC 749 (B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India) in paragraph 18, it is held as follows:
Allahabad District Co-Operative Bank ... vs Vidhya Varidh Mishra on 11 August, 2004
In paragraph 12 of the decision in Allahabad District Co-Op. Bank Ltd. v. Vidhya Varidh Mishra (supra) the Supreme Court observed:-
Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs And ... vs Tahir Ali Khan Tyagi on 22 April, 2002
11. Similarly, in Secretary, Ministry of Homes Affairs and Another v. Tahir Ali Khan Tyagi (supra) the Supreme Court observed (vide paragraph -6):
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs B.S. Hullikatti on 22 January, 2001
In our opinion, the facts of the above case and the law laid down therein apply to the facts of the present case also.
Thakur Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 24 March, 1995
In Thakur Singh v. State of Punjab this Court observed: (SCC p.209, para 4)
4. It is admitted that the petitioner himself was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. It is also admitted that bus was driven over a bridge and then it fell into canal. In such a situation the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur comes into play and the burden shifts on to the man who was in control of the automobile to establish that the accident did not happen on account of any negligence on his part. He did not succeed in showing that the accident happened due to causes other than negligence on his part.
J. D. Jain vs The Management Of State Bank Of India & ... on 17 December, 1981
In J.D.Jain v. Management of State Bank of India and Anr. (1982) 1 SCC 143 it was held, almost in a similar factual background, that confessional evidence and circumstantial evidence, despite lack of any direct evidence, was sufficient to hold the delinquent guilty of misconduct and to ustify the order of termination that had been passed."
Lalit Popli vs Canara Bank & Ors on 18 February, 2003
(a) The scope of interference in the domestic enquiry findings and the Labour Court decision and the effect of acquittal in the criminal case was considerd by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2003) 3 SCC 583 (Popli v. Canara Bank), wherein in paragraphs 16 to 19 it is held thus:
State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena & Others on 27 September, 1996
"16. It is fairly well settled that the approach and objective in criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings the preliminary question is whether the employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit action against him, whereas in criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him are established and if established what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial are conceptually different. (See State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena) In case of disciplinary enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application. The doctrine of proof beyond doubt has no application. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record are necessary to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct.