Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.89 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Prakash Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 August, 2022

Raghvendra Rishiswar vs State Of M.P. on 4 December, 2025

6. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the enquiry officer himself has acted as a prosecutor in the case and has cross- examined the witnesses which is not permissible in law. The aforesaid aspect was considered in the case of Ram Prakash Singh vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P.No.414 of 2002 decided on 16.11.2009 wherein the case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey reported in (2002) 10 SCC 471 was taken Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONIKA SHARMA Signing time: 12/6/2025 11:16:53 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31519 6 WP-2777-2012 note of and it has been held as under :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sudhir Singh Kushwah vs State Of M.P. on 12 January, 2026

8. Shri Mangal, learned Government Advocate for the appellant submits that the judgment passed in case of Arun Prakash Yadav (Supra) requires reconsideration as the scope of Regulation 229 has not been considered by the Division Bench where the Superintendent is empowered to pass the final order in certain cases and in other cases file would be sent to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, therefore, the Regulation 228 and 229 has to be read together and according to which, the Superintendent of Police alone is not competent to issue the charge-sheet, but Deputy Inspector General of Police can also issue a charge-sheet to the Inspector.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suresh Chandra Dixit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 13 February, 2026

8. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the Inquiry Officer himself has acted as a Prosecutor in the case and has cross-examined the witnesses, which is not permissible in law. The aforesaid aspect was considered in the case of Ram Prakash Singh vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P.No.414 of 2002 decided on 16.11.2009 wherein the case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey reported in (2002) 10 SCC 471 was taken note of and it has been held as under :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kamal Kumar Bhargava vs State Of M.P. on 9 April, 2026

14. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the Inquiry Officer himself has acted as a Prosecutor in the case and has cross-examined the witnesses, which is not permissible in law. The aforesaid aspect was considered in the case of Ram Prakash Singh vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P.No.414 of 2002 decided on 16.11.2009 wherein the case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey reported in (2002) 10 SCC 471 was taken note of and it has been held as under :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Devendra Singh Raghuvanshi (Deleted) ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 April, 2026

15. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the enquiry officer himself has acted as a prosecutor in the case and has cross- examined the witnesses which is not permissible in law. The aforesaid aspect Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 4/22/2026 6:37:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12734 11 WP-6475-2013 was considered in the case of Ram Prakash Singh vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P.No.414 of 2002 decided on 16.11.2009 wherein the case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey reported in (2002) 10 SCC 471 was taken note of and it has been held as under :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi [Sharma] vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2026

9. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the Inquiry Officer himself has acted as a Prosecutor in the case and has cross-examined the petitioner, which is not permissible in law. The aforesaid aspect was considered in the case of Ram Prakash Singh vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P.No.414 of 2002 decided on 16.11.2009, wherein the case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey reported in (2002) 10 SCC 471 was taken note of and it has been held as under :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajkamal Pathya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 August, 2024

6. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the enquiry officer himself has acted as a prosecutor in the case and has cross- examined the witnesses which is not permissible in law. The aforesaid aspect was considered in the case of Ram Prakash Singh (supra) wherein the case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey reported in (2002) 10 SCC 471 was taken note of and it has been held as under :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V Mishra - Full Document

Rajnesh Singh Bhadoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 28 August, 2024

8. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the enquiry officer himself has acted as a prosecutor in the case and has cross-examined the witnesses which is not permissible in law. The aforesaid aspect was considered in the case of Ram Prakash Singh (supra) wherein the case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey reported in (2002) 10 SCC 471 was taken note of and it has been held as under :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V Mishra - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rajnesh Singh Bhadoriya on 25 September, 2025

"5.4 That, during the course of the departmental enquiry the disciplinary authority has not appointed the Presenting Officer during the enquiry and conducted the enquiry against the petitioner and cross-examined the witnesses during the course of enquiry and enquiry officer himself cross-examined as a prosecutor. The enquiry officer has handed over the written Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 25-09-2025 18:14:13 2 RP-1710-2025 questionnaire to the witnesses and on the basis of written questionnaire, the enquiry has been concluded in the matter which is contrary to the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and also contrary to the judgment delivered by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Ram Prakash Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others passed in W.P.No.414/2002 vide order Annexure P/8 dated 16.11.2009 and against the order the State of M.P. filed a Writ Appeal No.200/2010 before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court and Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court affirmed the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench vide order dated 23.4.2010 Annexure P/9."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rajnesh Singh Bhadoriya on 7 November, 2025

"5.4 That, during the course of the departmental enquiry the disciplinary authority has not appointed the Presenting Officer during the enquiry and conducted the enquiry against the petitioner and cross-examined the witnesses during the course of enquiry and enquiry officer himself cross- examined as a prosecutor. The enquiry officer has handed over the written 1 RP-1710-2025 questionnaire to the witnesses and on the basis of written questionnaire, the enquiry has been concluded in the matter which is contrary to the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and also contrary to the judgment delivered by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Ram Prakash Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others passed in W.P.No.414/2002 vide order Annexure P/8 dated 16.11.2009 and against the order the State of M.P. filed a Writ Appeal No.200/2010 before the Division Bench of this Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 11-11-2025 17:55:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28237
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - V Mishra - Full Document
1   2 Next