Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (1.60 seconds)

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 289 - T S Thakur - Full Document

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."
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 352 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 135 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next