Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.42 seconds)
Shri Arun Prasada vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 January, 2005 cites

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

2. Cases are common-place where it has been contended that once an employee has been acquitted in a criminal case, disciplinary proceedings on the same subject should be dropped forthwith. The view in Kundan Lal v. The Delhi Administration, Delhi and Ors., 1976(1) SLR 133 where Departmental Proceedings had been quashed consequent upon the acquittal of the delinquent employee has not been ubiquitously followed.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Shaik Kasim vs The Superintendent Of Post Offices, ... on 25 November, 1964

In Shaik Kasim v. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Chingle put Dn. and Anr., AIR 195 Madras 502 it has been held that if Departmental Proceedings are initiated on identical facts, evidence and charges as those in the criminal proceedings and where the acquittal is substantially on merits, it would be proper for the disciplinary proceedings to be brought to an end. Similar arguments had been raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Capt.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 41 - Full Document

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

Krishnakant Raghunat Bibhavenekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., was decided without reference to Anthony's case(supra). Pending his criminal trial the employee was placed under suspension and consequent upon his acquittal in that prosecution because of insufficient evidence, he was reinstated but consequential benefits were not granted to him. The Court opined that-It is true that when a government servant is acquitted of offences, he would be entitled to reinstatement. But the question is whether he would be entitled to all consequential benefits including the pensionary benefits treating the suspension period as duty period, as contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar? The object of sanction of law behind prosecution is to put an end to crime against the society and laws thereby intends to restore social order and stability. The purpose of the prosecution of a public sevant is to maintain discipline in service, integrity, honesty and truthful conduct in performance of public duty or for modulation of his conduct to further the efficiency in public service. The Constitution has given full faith and credit to public acts Conduct of a public servant has to be an open book; corrupt would be known to everyone. The reputation would gain notoriety. Though legal evidence may be insufficient to bring home the guilt beyond doubt or foolproof. The act of reinstatement sends riples among the people in the office/locality and shows wrong signals for degeneration of morality, integrity and rightful conduct and efficient performance of public duty. The constitutional animation of public faith and credit given to public acts would be undermined. Every act or the conduct of a public servant should be to effectuate the public purpose and constitutional objective. Public servant renders himself accountable to the public. The very cause for suspension of the petitioner and taking puitive action against him was his conduct that led to his prosecution for the offences under the Indian Penal Code. If the conduct alleged is the foundation for prosecution, though it may end in acquittal on appreciation or lack of sufficient evidence, the question emerges whether the government servant prosecuted for commission of defalcation of public funds and fabrication of the records, though culminated into acquittal, is entitled to be reinstated with consequential benefits. In our considered view tis grant of consequential benefits with all back wages etc. cannot be as a matter of course. We think that it would be deleterious to the maintenance of the discipline if a person suspended on valid considerations is given full back wages as a matter of course on his acquittal. Two courses are open to the disciplinary authority, viz., it may enquire into the misconduct unless, the selfsame conduct was subject of charge and on trial the acquittal was recorded on a positive finding that the accused did no commit the offence at all; but acquittal is not on benefit of doubt given. Appropriate action may be taken thereon. Even otherwise, the authority may, on reinstatement after following the principle of natural justice, pass appropriate order including trating suspension period as period of not on duty (and on payment of subsistence allowance etc.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 1683 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavnekar vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 28 February, 1997

Krishnakant Raghunat Bibhavenekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., was decided without reference to Anthony's case(supra). Pending his criminal trial the employee was placed under suspension and consequent upon his acquittal in that prosecution because of insufficient evidence, he was reinstated but consequential benefits were not granted to him. The Court opined that-It is true that when a government servant is acquitted of offences, he would be entitled to reinstatement. But the question is whether he would be entitled to all consequential benefits including the pensionary benefits treating the suspension period as duty period, as contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar? The object of sanction of law behind prosecution is to put an end to crime against the society and laws thereby intends to restore social order and stability. The purpose of the prosecution of a public sevant is to maintain discipline in service, integrity, honesty and truthful conduct in performance of public duty or for modulation of his conduct to further the efficiency in public service. The Constitution has given full faith and credit to public acts Conduct of a public servant has to be an open book; corrupt would be known to everyone. The reputation would gain notoriety. Though legal evidence may be insufficient to bring home the guilt beyond doubt or foolproof. The act of reinstatement sends riples among the people in the office/locality and shows wrong signals for degeneration of morality, integrity and rightful conduct and efficient performance of public duty. The constitutional animation of public faith and credit given to public acts would be undermined. Every act or the conduct of a public servant should be to effectuate the public purpose and constitutional objective. Public servant renders himself accountable to the public. The very cause for suspension of the petitioner and taking puitive action against him was his conduct that led to his prosecution for the offences under the Indian Penal Code. If the conduct alleged is the foundation for prosecution, though it may end in acquittal on appreciation or lack of sufficient evidence, the question emerges whether the government servant prosecuted for commission of defalcation of public funds and fabrication of the records, though culminated into acquittal, is entitled to be reinstated with consequential benefits. In our considered view tis grant of consequential benefits with all back wages etc. cannot be as a matter of course. We think that it would be deleterious to the maintenance of the discipline if a person suspended on valid considerations is given full back wages as a matter of course on his acquittal. Two courses are open to the disciplinary authority, viz., it may enquire into the misconduct unless, the selfsame conduct was subject of charge and on trial the acquittal was recorded on a positive finding that the accused did no commit the offence at all; but acquittal is not on benefit of doubt given. Appropriate action may be taken thereon. Even otherwise, the authority may, on reinstatement after following the principle of natural justice, pass appropriate order including trating suspension period as period of not on duty (and on payment of subsistence allowance etc.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 70 - Full Document

Chairman And Managing Director,United ... vs P.C.Kakkar Chairman And Managing ... on 11 February, 2003

In Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. v. P.C. Kakkar, , it has been opined that ''acquittal in the criminal case is not determinative of the commission of misconduct or otherwise, and it is open to the authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, notwithstanding acquittal in criminal case. It per se would not entitle the employee to claim immunity from the proceedings. At the most the factum of acquittal may be a circumstance to be considered while awarding punishment. It would depend upon facts of each case and even that cannot have universal application''.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 428 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Upendra Singh on 17 February, 1994

10. Mr. Krishna has attempted to brush aside the failure to advert to Rule 11(c) as legally insignificant on the argument that the Gratuity Rules would come into play only after the retirement/ superannuation of the employee concerned. It is his submission that for this sole reason the Memorandum dated 29.1.2002 made no reference to the Gratuity Rules. If this is so, the Rule itself is not attracted, since it cannot be contended that the proceedings were, in the language of the Rule itself, ''contemplatedor pending at the time of resignation/retirement''. The present case, therefore, falls squarely within the ratio in Upendra's case (supra), namely, that the lack of jurisdiction to continue with the Departmental Inquiry is patently obvious. As has already been recorded above, learned counsel for the Petitioner had steered clear of the correctness of the imputations made against the Petitioner and had rested his arguments squarely on the obvious illegality of the proceedings. It appears to me that the Departmental Inquiry was more in the nature of an Inquisition. The alleged loss caused to IRCON by the Petitioner is stated to be approximately Rs. 13 crores, whereas the recoveries that can be made from the gratuity would be a nominal amount of less than Rs. 3,00,000/-. Mr. Krishna contends that the impact of the delay in the issuance of the Memorandum dated 22.12.2003 is an altogether different issue, since it touches upon latches. In my view, the long delay is indicative of the Inquiry being in the nature of an Inquisition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 426 - B P Reddy - Full Document

The State Bank Of India vs Shri A.N. Gupta Etc on 30 September, 1997

In State Bank of India v. A.N. Gupta and Ors., their Lordships, Sujata V. Manohar and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ. had overruled the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in T. Narasiah v. SBI, (1978) 2 LLJ 173 and of the High Court of Bombay in J.K. Kulkarni v. State Bank of India in MP No. 964 of 1997 decided on 29.11.1997, for the reason that those decisions imparted validity to disciplinary proceedings against an employee even after his superannuation, for which no provision existed either in the Pension Rules or in the Service Rules. The Apex Court rejected the plea that the Provident Fund Trustees were empowered to withhold the Provident Fund till after thy had had an opportunity to establish and determine the amount, if any, due from the Respondents to the Bank.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 53 - Full Document

Bhagirathi Jena vs Board Of Directors, O.S.F.G. And Ors on 31 March, 1999

In Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court cogitated upon a Regulation which did not contain any specific provision enabling deductions from the Provident Fund consequent upon misconduct established in a Departmental Inquiry, nor was there any provision made for continuation of the Departmental Inquiry after superannuation. The Bench comprising their Lordships M. Jagannadha Rao and S.S.M. Quadri, JJ. had this to say:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 258 - Full Document

Takhatry Shivadattray Mankad vs State Of Gujarat on 5 May, 1989

Further, there were rules in that case which enabled the continuance of the departmental enquiry even after superanuation for the purpose of finding out whether any misconduct was established which could be taken into account for the purpose of Rule 241-A. In the absence of a similar provision with the regulations of the respondent-Corporation, the above judgment of Mankad case cannot help the respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 18 - S R Pandian - Full Document
1   2 Next