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

2022 Supreme(All) 1610

SIDDHARTHA VARMA
Indreshpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Atipriya Gautam and Vinod Kumar Mishra

JUDGMENT :

Siddhartha Varma, J.

The petitioners have challenged the departmental charge-sheet dated 27.11.2021 on the ground that the charges in the departmental proceedings were the same to the charges which were framed in the criminal case which arose from case crime No. 121 of 2021, under Section 384/211 I.P.C. alongwith the added Sections 120-B, 167, 211, 323, 342, 379, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Etah.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Coal Mines Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 1416 and State Bank of India and others v. R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27, submitted that simultaneously both criminal and civil proceedings against them could not be undergone. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a decision of this Court in Dhirendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 2705 Of 2012 decided on 16.1.2012 in which following observations have been made :

    ''After the respective arguments have been advanced, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony

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