Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.36 seconds)S.A. Venkataraman vs The Union Of India And Another on 30 March, 1954
In
S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India Another [A.I.R. 1954
S.C. 375], the petitioner therein was subjected to
disciplinary proceedings in the first instance and was
dismissed from service on 17th September, 1953. On 23rd
February, 1954, the police submitted a charge-sheet against
the petitioner therein in a Criminal Court in respect of the
very same charges. The petitioner challenged the initiation
of criminal proceedings on the ground that it amounts to
putting him in double jeopardy within the meaning of Clause
(2) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. A
Constitution Bench of this Court rejected the said plea
holding that there is no legal rejected the said plea
holding that there is no legal objection to the initiation
or continuation of criminal proceedings merely because he
was punished earlier in disciplinary proceedings. It is thus
clear - and the proposition is not disputed by Mr. K.
Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent - that in
law there is no bar to, or prohibition against, initiating
simultaneous criminal proceedings and disclipnary
proceedings. Indeed not only the said two proceedings, but
if found necessary, even a civil suit can also proceed
simultaneously. Mr. Madhava Reddy, however, submits that as
held by this Court in certain later decisions, it would not
be desirable or appropriate to proceed simultaneously with
the criminal proceedings as well as disciplinary
proceedings.
The Delhi Cloth And General Mills Ltd vs Kushal Bhan on 10 March, 1959
In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan
[1960 (3) S.C.R. 227], it was held that the principles of
natural justice do not require that the employer should wait
for the decision of the criminal court before taking
disciplinary action against the employee. At the same time,
the Court observed : "We may, however, add that if the case
is of a grave nature or involves questions of fact or law,
which are not simple, it would be advisable for the employer
to await the decision of the trial court, so that the
defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be
prejudiced."
Jang Bahadur Singh vs Baij Nath Tiwari on 26 April, 1968
It only serves the interest of the guilty
and dishonest. While it is not possible to enumerate the
various factors, for and against the stay of disciplinary
proceedings, we found it necessary to emphasise some of the
important considerations in view of the fact that very
often the disciplinary proceedings are being stayed for long
periods pending criminal proceedings. Stay of disciplinary
proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of
course. All the relevant factors, for and against, should be
weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various
principles laid down in the decisions referred to above.
Article 20 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
1