Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)
Mani vs Group Commandant on 10 April, 2007 cites

Chairman-Cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. Corpn. ... vs K. Meerabai on 23 January, 2006

38. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the decision T.N.C.S.Corpn. Ltd., v. K.Meerabai, reported in 2006 (2) SCC 255, a criminal proceeding is different from departmental enquiry, with regard to standards of proof required. In a criminal case, unless the guilt against a person is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, one cannot be punished and the benefit of doubt should be given only to the accused, but in the departmental enquiry, it is not so, in the departmental enquiry, it is clear that preponderance of probability is sufficient to prove the charges. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the criminal court has acquitted the accused, only by giving benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant. Therefore, it cannot be construed as a Honourable acquittal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 116 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

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

In the decision, G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2006 (3) CTC 494, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when criminal proceedings ended in acquittal, by Judicial pronouncement made after regular and hot trial, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand, based on same set of facts and same set of evidence and when there is an Honourable acquittal of an employee, during the pendency of a proceeding, it has to be taken note of that the decision in Paul Anthony's case (supra) will apply.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 352 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

South Bengal State Transport Corpn vs Swapan Kumar Mitra And Ors on 3 February, 2006

In the decision, South Bengal State Transport Corpn. v. Swapan Kumar Mitra, reported in JT 2006 (2) SC 307, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in a criminal case, the charges have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, while in departmental proceedings, the standard of proof required is mere preponderance of probabilities and therefore, in spite of acquittal in the criminal proceeding, an order of dismissal emanating from departmental proceeding can be sustainable. As per this decision, it is clear that mere acquittal in a criminal proceeding would not " ipso facto", nullify the departmental proceeding.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 114 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Uttaranchal Road Transport Corpn.And ... vs Mansaram Nainwal on 28 July, 2006

23. At this juncture, we find it reasonable to refer to the ruling of the Apex Court with regard to law of precedents in the decision, Uttaranchal Road Transport Corpn. v. Mansaram Nainwal, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 366, which reads as follows "13... According to the well-settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three basis postulates :
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 106 - A Pasayat - Full Document

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

In the decision, G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2006 (3) CTC 494, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when criminal proceedings ended in acquittal, by Judicial pronouncement made after regular and hot trial, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand, based on same set of facts and same set of evidence and when there is an Honourable acquittal of an employee, during the pendency of a proceeding, it has to be taken note of that the decision in Paul Anthony's case (supra) will apply.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 1683 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1