Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (2.65 seconds)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
(Emphasis supplied)
23 . 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 7/31/2025
5:48:09 PM
8
WP No.39004 of 2024
service.
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Karnataka Power Trans.Corp. Ltd. ... vs Sri C Nagaraju on 16 September, 2019
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power
Transaction Corporation Limited Vs. C. Nagaraju and another 2019 (10)
SCC 367 has held in para 11 that benefit can be claimed only if evidence
before the criminal court and the departmental inquiry is exactly the same.
In such circumstances acquittal of the employee by criminal court can be
given weight by the disciplinary authority. It has further been held that
acquittal of employee due to non-availability of any evidence before the
criminal court would not come to rescue of the employee in the matter of
dismissal on the basis of report of enquiry officer before whom there is
ample evidence. The following has been held in para- 11 :
Mangt.,Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs M.Mani on 9 November, 2017
21. The Supreme Court in the case of Management of Bharat Heavy
Electricals Limited Vs. M.Mani 2018 (1) SCC 285 has held that employee
can seek automatic reversal of dismissal order upon acquittal in criminal
case only in such cases where the dismissal is founded upon conviction in
criminal case. Where dismissal is not founded upon conviction in criminal
case but is founded upon independent domestic inquiry carried out by the
management/ employer, there cannot be any automatic reinstatement. The
following has been held therein:-
M/S Stanzen Toyotetsu India P.Ltd vs Girish V & Ors on 21 January, 2014
22. The Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private
Limited Vs. Girish V. and others reported in(2014) 3 SCC 636 has held as
under:-
Ajit Kumar Nag vs G.M.(P.J.)Indian Oil Corporation. ... on 19 September, 2005
18. The exposition has been further affirmed by a three Judge
Bench of this Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.
This Court held as under: (SCC p. 776, para 11)
"11. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal
court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does
not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it
is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is
fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would
not debar an employer from exercising power in
accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. The
two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are
entirely different. They operate in different fields and
have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal
trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender,
the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the
delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in
accordance with the service rules. In a criminal trial,
incriminating statement made by the accused in certain
circumstances or before certain officers is totally
inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence
and procedure would not apply to departmental
proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to
order a conviction is different from the degree of proof
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 7/31/2025
5:48:09 PM
12
WP No.39004 of 2024
necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The
rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two
proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden
of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution
is able to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond
reasonable doubt", he cannot be convicted by a court of
law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand,
penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a
finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of
probability". Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial
Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him
from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of
the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the
contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted
by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing him
from service deserves to be quashed and set aside."