Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2004 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (12) TMI 661 - SUPREME COURTWhether the department enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case? Held that:- In cases involving Section 13 (1)(e) of the P.C. Act, the onus is on the accused to prove that the assets found were not disproportionate to the known sources of income. The expression 'known sources of income' is related to the sources known to the authorities and not the accused. Therefore, there is no question of any disclosure of defence in the departmental proceedings. In the criminal case, the accused has to prove the source of acquisition. He has to satisfactorily account for the same. Additionally, issues covered by charges 2 and 3 cannot be the subject matter of adjudication in the criminal case. That being the position, the High Court was not justified in directing stay of the departmental proceedings pending conclusion of the criminal charge. Where there is delay in the disposal of a criminal case the departmental proceedings can be proceeded with so that the conclusion can be arrived at an early date. If ultimately the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty the employer may get rid of him at the earliest. Appeal allowed.
|