RAMA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
LAWS(KAR)-1966-11-9
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on November 09,1966

SRI RAMA Appellant
VERSUS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

RAMAN KUMAR SAXENA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-12-304] [REFERRED TO]
R N KALYANI VS. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER ELEC [LAWS(KAR)-1988-8-57] [REFERRED TO]
N SHIVALINGAIAH VS. KARNATAKA STATE CO OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1995-7-2] [FOLLOWED ON]
KAJAL KUMAR DAS VS. KUDREMUKH IRONORE COMPANY LIMITED BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1995-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
VARKEY JOSEPH VS. MECHANICAL SUPERINTENDENT, COCHIN PORTTRUST [LAWS(KER)-1971-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH NATH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1968-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
KUSHESHWAR DUBEY VS. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1988-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
HARINARAYAN RAMRATAN DUBEY KHANDWA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1975-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
SHEIKH RAHIS KHAN VS. BOARD OF REVENUE [LAWS(MPH)-2006-1-143] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Somnath Ayyar, J. - (1.)The petitioner who was a police constable in the Chickballapur town police station, was charged with misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding which was commenced against him. The allegation against him was that he infringed the provisions of the Prohibition Act and misbehaved with a merchant of Chickballapur town on February 14, 1964. It transpires that in respect of the offence stated to have been committed under the Mysore Prohibition Act, the sub-inspector registered a case against the petitioner under S. 76 of the Act, although no prosecution in respect of that offence has yet commenced.
(2.)We are told that the petitioner declined to participate in the disciplinary proceeding on the ground that there was an impending criminal prosecution against him in respect of the same matter. In consequence the disciplinary proceeding has proceeded ex parte up to a particular stage.
(3.)The argument maintained by Sri Rama Jois on behalf of the petitioner is that the contemplated criminal prosecution is an impediment to the commencement of a disciplinary proceeding. It was said that the evidence which was proposed to be produced against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding was identical with the evidence by which the offence under S. 76 of the Mysore Prohibition Act could be proved and there could not be a parallel disciplinary proceeding.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.