Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.37 seconds)Union Of India & Anr vs Purushottam on 5 January, 2015
(g) of the impugned order which relate to the FIR and the
order of CJM dated 10/10/2005. The respondents cannot be
expected to sit in judgment of the order of the CJM and so
reliance on the law laid down by the Hon Apex court in the
matter of Union of India vs. Purushottam is proof that the
respondents have applied their mind in order to deal with
the contention of the applicant. What is noteworthy in this
context is that the applicant has not been discharged
without any doubts. In fact the applicant has got the benefit
of hostile witnesses and so it cannot be held that it is a fully
honourable discharge. The emphasis of the judgment on the
point that acquittal in criminal prosecution may only
preclude contrary conclusion in departmental enquiry if
former is positive decision i.e. honorable acquittal in
contradistinction to passive verdict which may be predicated
on technical infirmities i.e. criminal court must conclude
that accused was innocent and not merely that he has not
been proved to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. What we
have are technical infirmities led by the hostile witnesses.
Section 17 in The National Co-Operative Development Corporation Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena & Others on 27 September, 1996
Thus in the case of
State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 417
= AIR 1997 SC 13 = 1997 (1) LLJ 746 (SC), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has emphasised the need for initiating
departmental proceedings in such cases in these words:
Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr on 30 March, 1999
In Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. &
Anr. , (1999) 3 SCC 679, the Supreme Court has observed
that departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal
case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their
being conducted simultaneously, though separately.
R.P. Kapur vs Union Of India And Anr on 19 November, 1963
The
question as to what is to be done in the case of acquittal in a
criminal case has been answered by the Hon' Supreme Court
Page 26 of 43
CAT, Lucknow O.A. No. 530 of 2018 Alok Mohan Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
in R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1964 SC 787
(a five Judge bench judgement) as follows:
Ajit Kumar Nag vs G.M.(P.J.)Indian Oil Corporation. ... on 19 September, 2005
The issue was explained in the following words by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following words in Ajit Kumar
Nag v G M, (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2005) 7
SCC 764:
State Of Punjab vs Vk Khanna & Ors on 30 November, 2000
The Hon Apex court in
the matter of State Of Punjab vs V.K. Khanna & Ors on 30
November, 2000 in Case No. Appeal {civil} 6963 of 2000,
judgment dated 30/11/2000 has held as under:
Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd vs Girja Shankar Pant & Ors on 18 October, 2000
"One redeeming feature in the matter of attributing bias or malice and is
now well settled that mere general statements will not be sufficient for
the purposes of indication of ill will. There must be cogent evidence
available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether in fact, there
was existing a bias or a malafide move which results in the miscarriage of
justice (see in this context Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam v. Girija Shankar
Pant & Ors: JT 2000 Suppl.II 206). In almost all legal enquiries, intention as
distinguished from motive is the all important factor and in common
parlance a malicious act stands equated with an intentional act without
just cause or excuse.