Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (1.60 seconds)Section 8 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 7A in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
M/S Stanzen Toyotetsu India P.Ltd vs Girish V & Ors on 21 January, 2014
7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has vehemently
opposed the petition. It is contended that it is not a simple case of criminal trial
and departmental proceedings on the same set of facts. It is contended that the
criminal trial is primarily concerned with the offer and handing over of bribe
money of Rs.5.00 lakhs to C.B.I. Officers in relation to some other unconnected
investigation being conducted by C.B.I. and the affairs of NCL. It is vehemently
argued that during the course of investigation by C.B.I. in this case when the
office and residential house of the petitioner was searched by the C.B.I., then
huge stash of money was recovered from the residence of the petitioner
amounting to Rs.3.85 crores and further amount of Rs.1.12 lakhs from his
office. It is argued that the criminal case is not concerned with recovery of this
huge amount of almost Rs.4.00 crores from the residence and office of the
petitioner, which was a incidental discovery made in course of investigation of
FIR relating to bribe money of Rs.5.00 lakhs. The FIR in criminal case and the
challan in that case do not relate to the source of funds of the said money found
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 28-06-2025
14:36:39
in possession of the petitioner to the tune of almost Rs.4.00 crores and the
petitioner being Manager (Secretarial) of NCL, the employer is having all the
right to enquire about its officer being in possession of such a huge stash of
money, which is many many times disproportionate to his known sources of
income. It is further contended that as per the service rules applicable to NCL
namely Coal India Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, the
activities of the petitioner amount to an independent misconduct and the
employer is having all the right to carry out enquiry into the said (mis)conduct
of the petitioner and to take appropriate action against him in the matter of
discovery of huge cash of almost Rs.4.00 crores from his residence and office.
G.M. Tank vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 10 April, 2006
The order of dismissal was upheld [G.M.
Tank v. State of Gujarat, 2003 SCC OnLine Guj 487] by the High
Court. In the appeal filed by the delinquent officer, this Court was of
the opinion that the departmental proceedings and criminal case
were based on identical and similar set of facts. The evidence before
the criminal court and the departmental proceedings being exactly
the same, this Court held that the acquittal of the employee by a
criminal court has to be given due weight by the disciplinary
authority. On the basis that the evidence in both the criminal trial
and departmental inquiry is the same, the order of dismissal of the
appellant therein was set aside. As stated earlier, the facts of this
case are entirely different. The acquittal of Respondent 1 was due to
non-availability of any evidence before the criminal court. The order
of dismissal was on the basis of a report of the inquiry officer before
whom there was ample evidence against Respondent 1."
Shashi Bhusan Prasad vs Inspector General, Cisf on 1 August, 2019
31. The Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad v. CISF,
reported in (2019) 7 SCC 797 has held as under :
G.M. Tank vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 10 May, 2006
"11. Reliance was placed by the High Court on a judgment of this
Court in G.M. Tank [G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC
446 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1121] whereby the writ petition filed by
Respondent 1 was allowed. In the said case, the delinquent officer
was charged for an offence punishable under Section 5(1)(e) read
with Section 5(2) of the PC Act, 1988. He was honourably acquitted
by the criminal court as the prosecution failed to prove the charge.
Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted and he was
dismissed from service.
Union Of India & Ors vs Dalbir Singh & Anr on 8 May, 2009
In the case of Union of India and others vs Dalbir Singh reported
in(2021) 11 SCC 321the Hon'ble court has held as under:-