TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a disciplinary authority could sustain findings of guilt and a dismissal order on the very same charges and facts after the employee had been acquitted by the criminal court on the merits, and whether the remaining proved irregularities could support the penalty of dismissal.
Analysis: Where criminal proceedings culminate in an acquittal on the substantial merits on identical facts and charges, it is not proper for a domestic or disciplinary tribunal to reach a contrary conclusion and punish the employee on the same foundation. The rule is not absolute in every case, because a technical acquittal or an acquittal based on want of sanction or similar defects may not preclude departmental action. But where the acquittal is a real exoneration on the merits, natural justice does not permit the disciplinary authority to disregard it and record findings inconsistent with the criminal court's decision. On the facts, the findings on the grave charges had to be set aside, and the minor surviving irregularities were not of such substance as to justify dismissal.
Conclusion: The dismissal order was unsustainable and was quashed, with the matter sent back for fresh determination on the basis of only the charges that remained established.
Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary authority cannot, consistently with natural justice, impose punishment on identical charges and facts after a criminal court has acquitted the employee on the merits; only a technical acquittal or proved misconduct of a substantially different or lesser kind may justify independent departmental action.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
