Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.47 seconds)
Rajeev Khare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2022 cites

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

sections 341 and 384 of the I.P.C.is for the purpose of determining whether the allegations of extortion of money from the truck drivers are proved, whereas, in the departmental inquiry it is to be seen whether the appellant-petitioner has made correct entries in the General Diary or not. The learned Single Judge has also noted that though there may be some common witnesses, however, the nature of allegations and the trial of both the proceedings do not suggest that any prejudice would be caused to the appellant-petitioner if both the proceedings are conducted simultaneously. The judgment relied on by the appellant-petitioner in the case of M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat God Mines Ltd. and another1 was also distinguished by the learned Single Judge on the aforesaid facts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 1683 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

M/S Stanzen Toyotetsu India P.Ltd vs Girish V & Ors on 21 January, 2014

In the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited Vs. Girish V. and others2,the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no bar in conducting the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. A perusal of the charge-sheet further shows that the allegation against the appellant-petitioner was for erroneously and incorrectly making entries in the Rojnamcha at around 11.30 P.M.on the date of incident with an object to create defense for the criminal case. 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 primary 1 (1993) 3 SCC 679 2 (2014) 3 SCC 636
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 289 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Lalit Popli vs Canara Bank & Ors on 18 February, 2003

question is whether an employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit action against him, whereas, in criminal proceedings the question is whether the offence 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 rule governing the enquiry and trial are conceptually different. (See:Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank and others)3.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 357 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1