Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)
Liladhar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 5 December, 2014 cites

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

In the circumstances as aforesaid, reliance has also been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt, M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679. It is submitted that since charges in the departmental proceeding remained unsubstantiated, therefore, no punishment should have been imposed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 1683 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

The State Of Karnataka & Anr vs T. Venkatramanappa on 20 September, 1996

Learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the informant Tinku @ Md. Shamim in his self statement also during course of investigation supported the allegation that the petitioner being as a patrolling party had indulged in beating of the driver of the Tanker, which led to his death. It is submitted that cause of death is found to be due to nuerogenic shock in the post mortem report. No other factor could be attributed to the death of driver when he was driving the vehicle all along in a fine manner till then. The retraction of the statement by the informant by cooking up a different story cannot belittle the gravity of the charges proved against the petitioner. It is submitted that the acquittal of the petitioner is based upon no evidence and more so when the prosecution witnesses themselves turned hostile. Therefore, no significance can be attached to such acquittal. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Karnataka and Anr. Vs. T. Venkataramanappa reported in (1996) 6 SCC 455 and in the case of K. Venkateshwarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 8 SCC 73, have squarely held that even in case of acquittal, which is other than honourable, departmental proceedings may follow. Disciplinary proceeding if pending against the delinquent, the authority concerned are entitled to proceed with them independently uninfluenced by the judgment and in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of punishment, which need not be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court in the present writ petition. The proceedings were held in a proper manner and after observing the principle of natural justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 56 - Full Document

K. Venkateshwarlu vs State Of A.P on 17 August, 2012

Learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the informant Tinku @ Md. Shamim in his self statement also during course of investigation supported the allegation that the petitioner being as a patrolling party had indulged in beating of the driver of the Tanker, which led to his death. It is submitted that cause of death is found to be due to nuerogenic shock in the post mortem report. No other factor could be attributed to the death of driver when he was driving the vehicle all along in a fine manner till then. The retraction of the statement by the informant by cooking up a different story cannot belittle the gravity of the charges proved against the petitioner. It is submitted that the acquittal of the petitioner is based upon no evidence and more so when the prosecution witnesses themselves turned hostile. Therefore, no significance can be attached to such acquittal. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Karnataka and Anr. Vs. T. Venkataramanappa reported in (1996) 6 SCC 455 and in the case of K. Venkateshwarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 8 SCC 73, have squarely held that even in case of acquittal, which is other than honourable, departmental proceedings may follow. Disciplinary proceeding if pending against the delinquent, the authority concerned are entitled to proceed with them independently uninfluenced by the judgment and in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of punishment, which need not be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court in the present writ petition. The proceedings were held in a proper manner and after observing the principle of natural justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 72 - Full Document
1