Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.30 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
http://www.judis.nic.in
be available only in cases involving complex question of fact and
10
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 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 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.
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
http://www.judis.nic.in
expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down
9
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 standard of rule or
applicability of Evidence Act stands excluded in a settled legal
position.
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
http://www.judis.nic.in and the criminal trial simultaneously, stay of
disciplinary proceedings may be advisable course in cases where
14
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, it may not be 'desirable', 'advisable', or
'appropriate' to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a
criminal case is pending on identical charges.
Therefore, stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should
not be, a matter of recourse.