Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Food Corporation Of India vs Harish Prakash Hinunia on 8 March, 2022

Food Corporation Of India vs Kishore Meena on 8 July, 2022

It is undisputed that so far as a co-employee is concerned, aggrieved by the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.158 of 2022 (Food Corporation of India and others vs. Harish Prakash Hinunia) staying the departmental enquiry, the appellants herein have filed SLP (C) No.8456 of 2022 (Food Corporation of India and others vs. Harish Prakash Hinunia). By the order dated 13.05.2022, notices have been issued to the respondent. Therefore, we deem it just and necessary to await the outcome of the aforesaid SLP to proceed further in the matter.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document

Siddharth Priyadarshan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 2024

5. It is further submitted that on the allegations, two charge sheets have already been filed and trials are going on against petitioner. Meanwhile, issuance of charge sheet entails initiation of departmental enquiry and if he participates in the departmental enquiry, then his defence would be open and Signature Not Verified Signed by: BIJU BABY Signing time: 05-12- 2024 10:47:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:59269 3 WP-25566-2023 his defence would become vulnerable before the trial Court for the reason that all witnesses in the charge sheet are similar as that of in the departmental enquiry. Therefore, in the interest of justice, and to protect him from the wrath of trial, where his defence would be rendered open, departmental enquiry be stayed till conclusion of the trial. He undertakes that he shall not take undue adjournment in the trial and in fact would take all endeavours to cause conclusion of trial as early as possible without delay. He relied upon judgments of Apex Court in the case of Capt.M.Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another (1999) 3 SCC 679, State Bank of India and others vs. Neelam Nag and another (2016) 9 SCC 491, Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Ltd. vs. Girish and others (2014) 3 SCC 636 and judgment of learned Division Bench in the case of Food Corporation of India vs. Harish Prakash Hinunia (W.A.No.158/2022 order dated 08.03.2022).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Pathak - Full Document

Gouri Shanker Meena vs Food Corporation Of India on 25 August, 2025

26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent judgment in Civil Appeal No. 3586/2025 (Food Corporation of India & others Vs. Harish Prakash Hinunia ) has held that in case of charges of corruption where the employee has been trapped while accepting bribe, preventing the employer from initiating departmental proceedings would not be proper and charges are serious and relating to discharge of duties and function of the employees in the Corporation. Consequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court set-aside the order of High Court and left it open for the Corporation to proceed with the enquiry. The Supreme Court has held as under:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Abhishek Pare vs Food Corporation Of India on 25 August, 2025

26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent judgment in Civil Appeal No. 3586/2025 (Food Corporation of India & others Vs. Harish Prakash Hinunia ) has held that in case of charges of corruption where the employee has been trapped while accepting bribe, preventing the employer from initiating departmental proceedings would not be proper and charges are serious and relating to discharge of duties and function of the employees in the Corporation. Consequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court set-aside the order of High Court and left it open for the Corporation to proceed with the enquiry. The Supreme Court has held as under:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Chandel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 2022

8. We have perused the FIR and the charge sheet issued against the appellant. The FIR relates to alleged withdrawal of fund against 23 dead beneficiaries. The charge sheet relates to alleged misconduct of illegal issuance of certificate for 23 beneficiaries. A perusal of FIR, do not same suggest that complicated questions of law and facts are involved. The allegation in criminal cases and departmental charge sheet are not such that both the proceedings cannot go on simultaneously. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/S Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd2 has held that there is no bar in conducting the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in the matter of Food Corporation of India vs. Harish Prakash Hinunia4 is concerned, the same has been passed under the facts and circumstances of that case. The legal position propounded therein is not disputed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document

Food Corporation Of India vs Vinod Kumnar Singh on 12 August, 2024

M. Paul Anthony (supra), Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited (supra) and by the coordinate Bench in the matter of Harish Prakash Hinunia (supra), in the opinion of this Court, Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 17-08-2024 11:17:23 5 WA-1752-2023 learned writ court has not committed any error or infirmity in restraining the employer from proceedings with the charge-sheet in the departmental enquiry for a period of 12 months from the date of order as both the cases are on the basis of commonality of charges, proposed witnesses and proposed documents and factual and legal complexity involved in both the trial are also same. The impugned order passed by learned writ court does not require any interference.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Food Corporation Of India vs Kirti Sagar Mishra on 12 August, 2024

M. Paul Anthony (supra), Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited (supra) and by the coordinate Bench in the matter of Harish Prakash Hinunia (supra), in the opinion of this Court, learned writ court has not committed any error or infirmity in restraining the employer from proceedings with the charge-sheet in the departmental enquiry for a period of 12 months from the date of order as both the cases are on the basis of commonality of charges, proposed witnesses and proposed documents and factual and legal complexity involved in both the trial are also same. The impugned order passed by learned writ court does not require any interference.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next