Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.50 seconds)
Sri. M. Siddappa S/O. A. Muniyappa vs The Board Of Governors Indian Institute ... on 26 July, 2006
cites
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Management Of Krishnakali Tea Estate vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 10 September, 2004
20. The decision relied on by the respondents in the case of Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akilabharathiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh will not assist the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent In Krishnakali Tea Estate's case the Supreme Court noticed that before the Labour Court the evidence lead by the Management was different from that lead by the prosecution in the criminal case and the material before the criminal Court and the Labour Court were entirely different. Therefore it was open to the Labour Court to have come to an independent conclusion dehors the finding of the criminal Court But in the instant case, the evidence and material before the criminal Court and in the domestic enquiry proceedings are same.
Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
The Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar held as under:
Sri Mahendra Nath Das Sri Gobinda Das vs State Of Assam on 14 May, 1999
The Supreme Court in the case of Govinda Das v. State of Bihar held, that the acquittal in the criminal proceedings is based on the view that charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Senior Superintendent Of Post Offices, ... vs A. Gopalan on 21 February, 1997
Since the standard of proof required to prove a charge of misconduct in departmental proceedings is not the same as that required to prove a criminal charge, the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case could not be made the basis for setting aside the order of termination in the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of evidence adduced in the departmental inquiry conducted in the charges leveled against the delinquent
In the case of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices v. A. Gopalan AIR 1999 SC 1514 it is held, that in a criminal case the charge has to be proved by the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt while in departmental proceedings the standard of proof for proving the charge is preponderance of probabilities.
Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs And ... vs Tahir Ali Khan Tyagi on 22 April, 2002
In the case of Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs v. Tahir Ali Khan Tyagi JT 2002 (Supp. 1) SC 520 it is held, that fee departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can run simultaneously and departmental proceedings can also be initiated even after acquittal in a criminal proceeding particularly when the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding is completely different from the standard of proof that is required to prove the delinquency of a government servant in a departmental proceeding, the former being one of proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the latter being one of preponderance of probability.
Allahabad District Co-Operative Bank ... vs Vidhya Varidh Mishra on 11 August, 2004
In the case of Allahabad District Cooperative Bank Limited v. Vidhya Varidh Mishra it is held, that in a disciplinary inquiry a conclusion different from that arrived at by a criminal Court may be arrived at. The strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal Court is not required in disciplinary proceedings.
Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr on 30 March, 1999
In the case of Capt M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited 1999 (3) SC 679 it is held, that the evidence led in the criminal case as well as in the domestic enquiry was one and the same and the criminal court having acquitted the workman on the very same evidence, a contrary finding in the domestic enquiry would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive.
G.M. Tank vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 10 April, 2006
In the case of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat 2006 AIR SCW 2709 it is held, that the distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in a case where facts and evidence in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings were the same.