Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)
Srikrishna Nagendrappa Megalamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2021 cites

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

31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of -9- the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthony case [(1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 810] will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 1683 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

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

9. Thus, as per the ratio laid down in the aforementioned judgments, a single act can lead to initiation of departmental proceedings and also a criminal case against the person. When a 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, the guilt of the accused needs to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. However, the nature of evidence in a departmental proceedings is entirely different from that of criminal trial. The standard of proof is not the same. The evidence required in the departmental enquiry is not regulated by the Evidence
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 135 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

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

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. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of probability". Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order [Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., 2004 SCC On Line Cal 59: (2004) 4 LLN 512] dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside."
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 273 - Full Document
1   2 Next