Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing Bholeram Soni vs Union Of India on 9 January, 2015

Gyandra Swaroop Bhatnagar vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan on 10 May, 2018

11. As per Annexure A-5, the applicant, while replying to the memo dated 13.04.2017, has specifically denied the charges levelled by the authority. So, as per law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which has been subsequently followed by the Hon'ble High Court, as discussed above, enquiry needs to be conducted to find the factual accuracy. In the present case, the applicant has been prejudiced of his valuable right as per principle of natural justice to put forth his defence by leading evidence in the enquiry. If enquiry would have been conducted, the applicant would have been in a position to lead the evidence Page 6 of 7 7 OA 202/00463/2017 to establish his defence. We are not convinced with the reply filed by the respondents that the applicant has admitted the fact regarding the meeting with the Assistant Commissioner on 05.04.2017. Merely, to meet the Assistant Commissioner, does not prove the misconduct of the applicant. So, to establish the fact of misconduct, which has been specifically denied by the applicant, it was required to be proved if any enquiry was instituted. Thus, we find that the instant case is fully covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Bholeram Soni (supra) and the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj (supra).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 November, 2018

Challenging the orders passed by the respondents No. 2 and 3, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that 2 where the charges levelled against the delinquent officer are denied, then even for imposing a minor penalty the authority should have conducted a departmental enquiry. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 20/11/2013 passed by this Court in the case of Umeshchandra Kaurav vs. State of MP and Others, in Writ Petition No.2613/2011 (Annexure P-8) and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Bholeram Soni vs. Union of India & Others, reported in 2015 (11) MPJR 67.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suresh Chandra Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 September, 2019

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India reported int (2001) 9 SCC 180, Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Others, 2008 (2) MPLJ 541 and Bholeram Vs. Union of India and Others 2015 (1) MPLJ 626, wherein it has been held that charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, then enquiry should be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement can not be dispensed with.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Jagdish Chouhan (Baret) vs Home Department on 2 September, 2021

This violates the principles of natural justice and principle laid down in judgment of Supreme Court in O.K. Bhardwaj (supra) and judgment of this Court in Bholeram (supra). We are unable to countenance the disciplinary proceedings and unable to give a stamp of approval to the impugned order of learned Single Judge. In our considered opinion, the decision making process was clearly vitiated and there exists a serious procedural impropriety in the decision making process.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S Paul - Full Document

D.P. Gautam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 September, 2022

Learned counsel submits that a perusal of the order impugned passed by the authority reflects that the penalty imposed against the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate and does not commensurate with the charges levelled against the petitioner, thus, while relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ku. Shailija R. Jeswani Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. reported in 2000 (3) MPHT 85 (NOC) and also in the case of Bholeram Soni Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2015 (1) MPWN 52 learned counsel submits that the impugned order deserve to be quashed and respondents be directed to extend all consequential benefits to the petitioner.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M S Bhatti - Full Document

Jeevan Ram Meena vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan on 27 March, 2023

8. On perusal of the reply to the memo dated 05.05.2015, the applicant has specifically denied the charges levelled against him by the authority. So, as per law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which has been subsequently followed by the Hon'ble High Court, as discussed above, enquiry needs to be conducted to find the factual accuracy. In the present case, the applicant has been prejudiced of his valuable right as per principle of natural justice to put forth his defence by leading evidence in the enquiry. If enquiry would have been conducted, the applicant would have been in a position to lead the evidence to establish his defence. The reply filed by the respondents submitting that the applicant has admitted the fact regarding beating the students, misbehaving with the parents, creating hurdles and showing non cooperation with the officer in charge of a school, we are not convinced with the same as merely writing a complaint on letter head, does not prove the Page 6 of 7 7 O.A.No. 202/00455/2018 misconduct of the applicant as the respondents have not attached the said with their reply. So, to establish the fact of misconduct, which has been specifically denied by the applicant, it was required to be proved if any enquiry was instituted. Thus, we find that the instant case is fully covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Bholeram Soni (supra) and the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj (supra).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Anoop Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 23 November, 2017

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180, Ajay Kumar Singh Vs State of M.P. & others, 2008 (2) MPLJ 541 and Bholeram Vs Union of India and others 2015 (1) MPLJ 626, wherein it has been held that if charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, then enquiry should be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement can not be dispensed with.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next