SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 1097

UMESH C.BANERJEE, G.B.PATTANAIK
State Of Punjab – Appellant
Versus
Dalbir Singh – Respondent


(1) CIVIL Appeal Nos. 5386-5389/1997 and 5390/1997 are directed against the Division Bench Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which took the view/that initiation of a departmental proceedings for the alleged misconduct would tantamount to double jeopardy and prohibited under Article 20 of the Constitution, as for the same misconduct under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, certain fine has been levied. This judgment of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court has later been reversed by the Full Bench of the same High Court against which concerned employee has moved this Court in C.A. No. 6071/1997. The question that arises for consideration, therefore, is whether the levy of penalty under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act would absolve the concerned employee from all liabilities and would debar the disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings. In other words, the question would be whether initiation of a departmental proceedings would tantamount to violation of provision contained in Article 20(2) of the Constitution. Having examined the relevant facts involved in these appeals and having examined the judgment of the Full Bench of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top