Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.17 seconds)Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale (D) Thr. Lrs vs U.O.I. & Ors on 25 September, 2012
In the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale v. Union of
India[(2012) 13 SCC 142], the Court held that there is no legal bar for
both proceedings to go on simultaneously. The only valid ground for
claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to
ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be
prejudiced but even such grounds would be available only in cases
involving complex question of fact and law. Such defence ought not to be
permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The
interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a
prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Noida Entrepreneurs Assn vs Noida & Ors on 15 January, 2007
In the case of NOIDA Entrepreneur Association v. NOIDA
and the others[JT 2001 (2) SC 620], the Court held that the standard of
proof and nature of evidence in the departmental inquiry is not the same
as in criminal case. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of
prosecution is two different and distinct aspects. The criminal
prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the
offended owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided
that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act
of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The
departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and
efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the
disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously
as possible. It is not, therefore desirable to lay down any guidelines as
inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be
stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each
case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and
circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with
departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the
15/23
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.4198 of 2015
criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact
and law.
Ajit Kumar Nag vs General Manager (Pj), Indian Oil ... on 6 February, 2004
In the case of Ajith Kumar Nag v. General Manager(PJ),
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia[2005-7-SCC-764], the Honourable
Apex Court considered the issue of validity of conducting departmental
16/23
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.4198 of 2015
proceeding when the criminal case was pending against the official and
held as follows:
Employers Management West Bokaro ... vs Concerned Workman,Ram Pravesh Singh on 1 February, 2008
In the case of West Bokaro Colliery(Tisco Ltd.) v. Ram
Parvesh Singh(2008) 3 SCC 729, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in
the case of that since standard of proof required in criminal case are
beyond reasonable doubt and what is required in departmental inquiry is
only of finding the guilt on the basis of preponderance of probability,
there is no bar in continuing both simultaneously.
S.A. Venkataraman vs The Union Of India And Another on 30 March, 1954
In the case of S.A.Venkatraman v. Union of India, AIR 1954,
SC 375 it has been held by the Supreme Court that taking recourse to
both, does not amount to double jeopardy.
M/S Stanzen Toyotetsu India P.Ltd vs Girish V & Ors on 21 January, 2014
In Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited v. Girish V.
And Other (2014) 3 SCC 636. It was held that suffice it to
say that while there is no legal bar to the holding of the
disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial
simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be
advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against
the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary
proceedings is likely to plagiarize their defence before the
criminal court.
State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena & Others on 27 September, 1996
2. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena
and Others (1996) 6 SCC 417 held that In certain situations,
18/23
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.4198 of 2015
it may not be 'desirable', 'advisable', or 'appropriate' to
proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case
is pending on identical charges.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Ajit Kumar Das vs Union Of India And Others on 25 April, 2017
In the case of Ajith Kumar Das v. Union of India and
Others[W.P.(C) NO.4036 of 2017], the Court held that the departmental
enquiry is to maintain discipline in service and efficiency of public
service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary
proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It
is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guideline as inflexible rules in
which the departmental proceeding may or may not be stayed pending
trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. There would be no
bar to proceed simultaneously with the departmental proceeding and trial
of a criminal case unless the charge in a criminal trial is of grave nature
involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally
implies infringement of public as distinguished from mere private right
punishable under criminal law, when trial for criminal offence is
conducted it should be in accordance with the proof of offence as per the
evidence defined under the provisions of the evidence act. Converse in
the case of departmental enquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to
conduct of breach of duty of the delinquent officer who punish him for
his misconduct defined under the relevant statute/rule or law that strict
12/23
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.4198 of 2015
standard of rule or applicability of Evidence Act stands excluded in a
settled legal position.