Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Parveen vs Comm. Of Police on 7 January, 2025 cites

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

After quoting from the judgment aforesaid and while taking into consideration another judgment of the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & others v T. Srinivas [AIR 2004 SC 4127], it has been ordered that in all cases where police officers may be facing criminal proceedings, especially under Prevention of Corruption Act or where moral turpitude is involved, departmental proceedings can also be initiated simultaneously and the same 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. The said Standing Order has been passed in consonance with the settled law on the situation. However, as mentioned above, when a subordinate rank may earn a clean acquittal in criminal proceedings, the order, if has already been passed in departmental proceedings inflicting the subordinate with a penalty, shall have to be re- visited.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 153 - Full Document

Sukhdev Singh vs Delhi State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 1 September, 2003

In view of the aforesaid facts and law, we are of the view that the impugned orders are in contradiction to the provisions of the Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 as well as the judgment of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sukhdev Singh (supra). Accordingly, the impugned orders of penalty deserve to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 64 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr on 30 March, 1999

"31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the department as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the Courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the Item No. 28/C-2 12 OA No. 2429/2019 employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthony's case (supra) will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 1683 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1