Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)
Constable Raghu Raj vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 May, 2010 cites

Dhujender Pal Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 12 July, 2002

In Dhujender Pal Singh (supra), when a similar plea of demand and acceptance of money raised by the PRG team has not been established, mere recovery of money has not been found apt to either hold the applicant therein guilty or to punish him in any manner. Moreover, in the instant cases, even if we go by the statement that money was recovered, this has not been proved that out of the recovered amount, an amount given by the truck driver was inclusive of this or not. As the truck driver has clearly deposed that he has not given any money to the Constables, in such view of the matter, mere recovery of the money may draw a presumption or one of the probabilities that this money could have belonged to the applicants, which when not proved, is not the proof of the allegations and on this score also, applicants cannot be held guilty of the charges.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Gyan Chand Chattar on 28 May, 2009

9. Learned counsel has also referred to the decision of Apex Court in Union of India & others v. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78 to contend that even in course of departmental proceedings where preponderance of probability is the rule, the Apex Court has ruled that in such view of the matter, there must be a clear proof of the misconduct and the charge is to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt to its hilt and cannot be sustained on mere probability.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 229 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Kundan Lal Vij vs Delhi Administration And Ors. on 6 August, 1970

18. Moreover, in the matter of precedent, as we are in the scrutiny jurisdiction of High Court under Rule 226 of the Constitution of India, the order passed by the High Court is binding over and above the case laws decided by the coordinate Benches of this Tribunal, especially when we do not disagree with the decision of the coordinate Benches. As such, the decision is squarely covered in Shri Kundan Lal v. The Delhi Administration & others, 1976 (1) SLR 133, which applies to the extent that recovery of money cannot establish either demand or acceptance and mere recovery is not a proof of corruption charge against the concerned.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Sinha on 2 February, 2010

19. Now coming to the inquiry report, the Apex Court from time to time stressed upon the role of inquiry officer while conducting inquiries. No doubt the inquiry officer is a quasi judicial officer. He is duty bound to act independently without any bias, as he is only inquiring into the case of prosecution but unfortunately unlike CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, there is no concept of appointment of presenting officer in Delhi Police and it is the inquiry officer, who presents evidence on behalf of the prosecution but it does not absolve him from his role to act independently and not to act as a judge and prosecutor. This proposition has been fortified by us on the basis of ruling of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, 2010 (2) SCC 772 where it has been ruled that on mere suspicion and surmises, one cannot be held guilty of the charge.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 718 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Sher Bahadur vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 August, 2002

In the matter of inquiry, there has to be a sufficient evidence even going by the standard of preponderance of probability to connect the delinquent officials from the alleged charge, as ruled by the Apex Court in Sher Bahadur v. Union of India & others, 2002 SCC (L&S) 1028 where it has been held that a mere statement with the evidence adduced is not sufficient to hold guilty. As we find that the inquiry officer himself in his report, which is reiterated by the disciplinary authority, had not established the charge of demand and acceptance of money against the applicants but merely on the basis of recovery, of which amount has not been proved to be the bribe money, he has deemed the charge of demand and acceptance proved on the basis of resultant recovery, which, to our considered view, is a finding recorded perversely and does not pass the twin test of a common reasonable prudent man. This is only on surmises, conjectures and suspicion, which is based on conclusion of the inquiry officer and as we are satisfied that there is absolutely no evidence against the applicants to hold them guilty of the charges, holding of guilty by the inquiry officer, which is subsequently agreed by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate authority cannot be sustained in law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 129 - Full Document
1