IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VIVEK JAIN
Abhishek Pare – Appellant
Versus
Food Corporation Of India – Respondent
ORDER :
VIVEK JAIN, J.
Since both these petitions are having identical facts and revolving on identical grounds, therefore they are being decided by this common order.
2. W.P. No. 20625/2023 has been filed by an employee of Food Corporation of India who holds the post of Assistant Grade-I (Technical) while W.P. No. 20626/2023 has been filed by an employee who holds the post of Assistant Grade-III (Technical) in the said Corporation. Both the petitioners have been involved in the same criminal case and part of the same transaction. For the sake of convenience the facts are taken from W.P. No.20625/2023.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners demanded bribe of Rs. 1.05 lac per month from Complainant Om Prakash Chandravanshi and the said demand was made by the petitioners of these two cases. The said demand of bribe was thereafter, reduced to Rs. 50,000/- upon negotiation and part of bribe was received by the petitioner Abhishek Pare. The said bribe was demanded by getting stock of food grains stored for long period in the warehouses which are in the name of family members of the complainant. Abhishek Pare is alleged to have obtained Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant befo
Captain M. Paul Antony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines
G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.
Shashi Bhushan Prasad Vs. Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force and others
Karnataka Power Transaction Corporation Limited Vs. C. Nagaraju and another
Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. M.Mani
Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited Vs. Girish V. and others reported
Depot Manager, A.P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. T. Srinivas
Union of India and others vs Dalbir Singh reported
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sarvesh Berry reported in
Departmental inquiries and criminal trials may occur simultaneously; overlapping charges allow for departmental proceedings to continue based on a preponderance of probabilities, unlike criminal tria....
Departmental inquiries and criminal trials may proceed simultaneously without prejudice unless grave issues are involved; the standard of proof differs significantly between the two contexts.
Departmental enquiries can proceed simultaneously with criminal trials unless they unduly prejudice the defense, emphasizing the need for prompt disciplinary action.
Departmental inquiries and criminal trials can proceed simultaneously unless staying the inquiry is necessary to prevent prejudice in the criminal trial.
Acquittal in a criminal case does not absolve the delinquent from liability under disciplinary jurisdiction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when the charges in the criminal case and departmental proceeding are similar, the evidence and witnesses are common, and the departmental pro....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.