Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.04 seconds)
Rohitash Meena vs Northern Coal Field Ltd. on 16 September, 2025 cites

G.M. Tank vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 10 April, 2006

22. The judgment in G.M. Tank case [G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1121] on which the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance was a case where this Court had proceeded on the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:43:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 10 WP No.14691/2025 premise that the charges in the criminal case and departmental enquiry are grounded upon the same sets of facts and evidence. This may not be of any assistance to the appellant as we have observed that in the instant case the charge in the criminal case and departmental enquiry were different having no nexus/co-relationship based on different sets of facts and evidence which has been independently enquired in the disciplinary proceedings and in a criminal trial and acquittal in the criminal proceedings would not absolve the appellant from the liability under the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him in which he had been held guilty and in sequel thereto punished with the penalty of dismissal from service."
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 352 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

G.M. Tank vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 10 May, 2006

"11. Reliance was placed by the High Court on a judgment of this Court in G.M. Tank [G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1121] whereby the writ petition filed by Respondent 1 was allowed. In the said case, the delinquent officer was charged for an offence punishable under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act, 1988. He was honourably acquitted by the criminal court as the prosecution failed to prove the charge. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 135 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Food Corporation Of India vs Harish Prakash Hinunia on 8 March, 2022

26. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Food Corporation of India (supra) has in fact set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court which was relied by learned counsel for the petitioner whereby the Division Bench had stayed the departmental enquiry and left it open for the department to seek modification of the order after one year.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - S Nagu - Full Document

Ajit Kumar Nag vs G.M.(P.J.)Indian Oil Corporation. ... on 19 September, 2005

19. We are in full agreement with the exposition of law laid down by this Court and it is fairly well settled that two proceedings criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on an offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. The degree of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-09-2025 18:43:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45809 16 WP No.14691/2025 proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. Even the rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a court of law whereas in the departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of probability". Acquittal by the court of competent jurisdiction in a judicial proceeding does not ipso facto absolve the delinquent from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authority. This what has been considered by the High Court in the impugned judgment1 in detail and needs no interference by this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 273 - Full Document
1   2 Next