Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 718 - KERALA HIGH COURTDisciplinary proceedings - imposition of punishment as per Annexure A9 order, whereby two increments were barred for a period of two years with cumulative effect - alternative remedy of revision - statement u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C - Held that: - A statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not substantive evidence. It can be used to corroborate the statement of a witness. It can be used to contradict a witness. It is settled law that in the case of a 'disciplinary proceeding', the guilt need not be established beyond any reasonable doubt, unlike a criminal proceeding and that preponderance of probability is sufficient in the former case. There is no allergy even to 'hear-say evidence', if it is having some nexus. The verdict passed by the Tribunal is perfectly within the four walls of the law and is not liable to be assailed in any circumstance. No tenable ground brought to the notice. Interference declined and the Original Petition fails and dismissed accordingly.
|