Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.35 seconds)
Baljeet Singh vs D.T.C. on 5 March, 2007 cites

State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena & Others on 27 September, 1996

Para 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 588 - B P Reddy - Full Document

L.K. Verma vs H.M.T. Ltd. & Anr on 31 January, 2006

12. This Court proposes to test the facts of the present case and the procedure adopted in the departmental proceedings on the touchstone of the aforesaid guiding principles as laid down by the Supreme Court. Admittedly, the principles of natural justice were adhered to in the course of the departmental enquiry. The petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing. He was also permitted to adduce evidence in support of his case. Thus there is no procedural irregularity or violation of principles of natural justice in the present case. In so far as the adverse observations made by the Inquiry Officer against the petitioner on the basis of the testimony of two material witnesses and the grievance that the Inquiry Officer ought not to have put further questions to the said witnesses once their statements were recorded and they were duly cross-examined is concerned, it is relevant to note that there is no bar on the Inquiry Officer from putting questions to the witnesses himself so as to reach to the root of the matter and satisfy himself in all respects. The conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of the evidence adduced by the witnesses in question, is also neither erroneous nor perverse or irrational. The Labour Court rightly held that the evidence of the two witnesses in question was clinching with regard to the identity of the petitioner as the person who was thrashed by the lady whom the petitioner was stated to have eve teased and misbehaved. It is also observed in the impugned order dated 25th January, 2005 that the evidence of the said witnesses inspired confidence and clearly established the identity of the petitioner as a person who committed the misconduct as his identity was established on the spot by the DTC staff and persons in the canteen.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 103 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next