TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Denies Stay of Conviction; Departmental Proceedings Valid Post-Conviction, No Double Jeopardy Found.</h1> <h3>Tribhuwan Prasad Singh Versus State of Jharkhand</h3> The HC dismissed the appellant's Interlocutory Application for a stay of the conviction order, finding no grounds to warrant such relief during the ... - Issues involved: The issues involved in this judgment are the application for stay/suspension of operation of conviction order, initiation of departmental proceedings against the appellant, and the question of whether the appellant can be punished twice for the same charges.Summary:Issue 1: Application for Stay/Suspension of Conviction Order The appellant filed an Interlocutory Application seeking a stay of the conviction order passed against him by the Special Judge. The appellant was convicted under Sections 409/477A IPC and Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant's provisional bail was confirmed during the pendency of the appeal.Issue 2: Initiation of Departmental Proceedings The employer issued a suspension order cum charge-sheet against the appellant after the conviction order, calling for an explanation regarding disciplinary action. An Enquiry Officer and a presenting officer were appointed to conduct the enquiry into the charges framed against the appellant.Issue 3: Double Punishment The appellant had previously faced a departmental enquiry, resulting in dismissal, which was later overturned, and he was reinstated unconditionally. The appellant argued that it was improper for the management to initiate a fresh departmental enquiry for the same charges for which he was already punished and reinstated.Court's Decision: The Court examined the distinct charges in the different charge-sheets and found that they were not related. The Court held that the appellant should be treated as corrupt until exonerated by a superior court, as per legal precedents. The Court dismissed the Interlocutory Application, stating that the appellant's case did not warrant a stay of the conviction order during the appeal.This judgment highlights the legal principles surrounding the application for stay of a conviction order, the initiation of departmental proceedings post-conviction, and the prohibition against double punishment for the same charges.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
