Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.30 seconds)State Bank Of India vs Neelam Nag on 11 May, 2018
ii) A perusal of the list of witnesses in the chargesheet issued to
the petitioner -Yogesh Lamba in CWP-18341-2022 for the period
when he was in Jagadhri would show that UHBVN proposes to
examine three witnesses i.e., N.K. Bhatia, Senior Assistant, Sanjeev
Shukla, SO and Surender Singh, Divisional Accountant (Retired) (at
page 89 of the paper book in CWP-18341-2022). A perusal of the
challan (Annexure P-1) dated 05.05.2022 (at page 63) would show
that in the criminal proceedings, there are 31 witnesses and none of
the above three witnesses are shown as witnesses in the said challan.
The issue in the present case is primarily as to whether the petitioners
have got the money, which was due on account of retiral benefits of
employees of UHBVN department, deposited in fake accounts and
had then withdrawn the same or got the money illegaly through
persons who were not retirees and the material relied upon to prove
the same is substantially documentary in nature and also the three
witnesses i.e., N.K. Bhatia, Sanjeev Shukla and Surender Singh are
the witnesses, who are primarily to be examined in the departmental
proceedings to prove the said documentary record, thus, it cannot be
said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, requiring
29 of 34
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2023 20:58:52 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:122299
CWP-18341-2022(O&M) 30 2023:PHHC:122299
this Court to continue the grant of stay of departmental proceedings
which has been granted by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 22.08.2022. Reference in this regard is made to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State Bank of
India and Ors. vs. Neelam Nag and Anr.'s case (supra) relied upon
by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner themselves, relevant
part of which has been reproduced hereinabove, in which one of the
requirement for grant of stay of proceedings is stated to be common
"evidence".
Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr on 30 March, 1999
22 of 34
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2023 20:58:52 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:122299
CWP-18341-2022(O&M) 23 2023:PHHC:122299
"2. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the facts
of the case as well as the decision of the Supreme Court, relied upon by
the appellant, in Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines,
1999(3) SCC 679, dismissed her petition, upon reaching a conclusion that
decision in Captain M. Paul Anthony (supra) does not lay down any
absolute principle of law that in all those cases where a criminal trial is
pending, the departmental proceedings must be kept in abeyance. Rather,
the question, whether, in the given situation, the departmental proceedings
are required to be stayed, would be determined taking into account
multiple factors: if the departmental proceedings and criminal trial are
based on similar set of facts; the charge in the criminal trial against the
delinquent employee is of a grave nature and involved complicated
questions of law and fact. Whereas, upon due consideration of the matter
in issue, the learned Single Judge recorded that it was not the case in the
matter at hands. It was observed that the charges against the appellant in
the departmental proceedings were that she had been siphoning off the
funds/amount from the accounts of the bank's customers in the name of
her own relatives since 2005. Further, upon being confronted with this
fact, she has made three deposits refunding certain amount. And,
significantly, the learned Single Judge also recorded that the entire
material that was to be relied upon and produced against the appellant
was documentary in nature and was either prepared by her or under her
supervision, being Manager of the branch.
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
North East Karnataka Road Transport ... vs Vittal Rao on 19 November, 2009
In the above judgment, apart from reiterating the fact that it is a
matter of settled law that there is no legal bar on conducting the disciplinary
proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously, reliance was also placed
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka SRTC vs. M.G.
Vittal Rao, in which it was observed that the ground for seeking stay would
be available only in cases involving complex questions of law and facts and
where the departmental proceedings are not unnecessarily delayed and
while drawing the said exception it was observed that the facts and the
"evidence" in both the proceedings should be common.