Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.38 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Union Of India vs Sardar Bahadur on 29 October, 1971
In Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur, this
Court held that a disciplinary proceeding is not a
criminal trial and thus, the standard of proof required is
that of preponderance of probabilities and not proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
R.S. Saini vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 9 September, 1999
Same is the case of
S.Bhaskar Reddy (supra) {See para 21}.
R.P. Kapur vs Union Of India And Anr on 19 November, 1963
After considering this judgment and after taking note of
the basic judgment of R.P.Kapoor (supra) , the Apex
Court held that the departmental inquiry and criminal
case can run simultaneously despite the fact that the
same are founded upon the same factual matrix. It was
held that facts, charges and nature of evidence, etc.
involved in an individual case would determine as to
whether decision of acquittal would have any bearing on
the findings recorded in the departmental inquiry.
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India the scope of
judicial review was indicated by stating that review by
the court is of decision-making process and where the
findings of the disciplinary authority are based on some
evidence, the court or the tribunal cannot reappreciate
the evidence and substitute its own finding.
Union Of India vs H. C. Goel on 30 August, 1963
In Union of India
v. H.C. Goel the Constitution Bench has held:
Lalit Popli vs Canara Bank & Ors on 18 February, 2003
In Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank, (2003) 3 SCC 583,
Supreme Court has held as under:
State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena & Others on 27 September, 1996
â16. 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 âproof beyond
doubtâ 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.
M.V. Bijlani vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006
In para-24, the Apex Court
considered the judgment of Captain M. Paul
Anthony(supra), and opined that this judgment is not
of universal application.