Rakesh Kumar v. State Of Haryana And ORS
!"# "$ " %""
" "$ " &
'()*)
$(+* ,- $*'
) ,
..
(/*)0 123(4
...*+ + , *4 5*4)2)
6+(+* ,- (47( ( ( ,+0*4)
... *)9, 8* +)
(/*)0 123(4
...*+ + , *4 5*4)2)
6+(+* ,- (47( ( ( ,+0*4)
... *)9, 8* +) " :#;
.
!
6
" 6 " 6
! "
"
"
# ! # $ % (
'()*) & ((
&) &) )*&& &+ && )**, # -$$ &. &* )*&/ # 0 1) 12 0 1+ -.
!
) 3 $ + 3% 01( !
)* *. )**) # 1$ )**, &+ && )**, ( )*&& ( # # (( &+ && )**, # -$$ &. &* )*&/ # 7 ( ( (
7 9($
!"#$% &'( ) *
# ( ! $ ( (( 8
$(( ( 8 .
7
( ( 3 7 %( ( ( ( % $ !
( 1$ # # $ ' %( $ 3 ; 3 $ < ( ( # ' !
($ )**, )*&& ' % 1$ (
$ 0!
*/ ! 1$ # / ($ ( ( 3 $ 5( !
8
' #
+,* +,-!.
..
/
!0 1
2 ) .. *.
.. $ 8 ( ( $! $
$ '( #
=$:
( 9($ 1 >13 The principles which govern a disciplinary enquiry are distinct from those which apply to a criminal trial. In a prosecution for an offence punishable under the criminal law, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence. The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding by an employer is to enquire into an allegation of misconduct by an employee which results in a violation of the service rules governing the relationship of employment. Unlike a criminal prosecution where the charge has to be established beyond reasonable doubt, in a disciplinary proceeding, a charge of misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities. The rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry. The acquittal of the accused in a criminal case does not debar the employer from proceeding in the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction."
, $ # $! $ $ % 8 ( &* #
0 $ ( $ !
&& 4 $!
*.
! %( $ 3 ; 3 $ $ ?$ ( ( '
<
&) ' !
# $!
$ ( ( @ & '(# # ! !
( ( # !
8 &+ ( ( 3 ' '( '(
& '( # !
$ &6 ( 8 )*&* )**,
)*&& 0 *2 ! ' 8 &.
' $ !
' ' # !
$ $ $ # ( ( $ 8( !
# ( '( 3
&<
( ' $
' (!
$
# ( !( $ '9 ' &2 3 $ ( ! &/ 3!
,=*3>*4 ?
" 6 " 6
!
$