The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr vs Satyendra Singh Bhadoriya on 3 August, 2017
(9) That co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Arun Prakash
Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others [2013(3) MPLJ 508]
has held:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 63 (0.47 seconds)State Of M.P. Through Principal ... vs Babulal Verma on 19 July, 2024
15. The petitioner has also challenged the charge-sheet on
the ground of authority that the D.I.G. is not the competent
authority to initiate the Departmental Eqnuiry. The Division
Bench in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav v/s The State of
Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in 2013 (3) M.P.L.J.
508 has held that disciplinary proceedings against an
Inspector of Police, the Superintendent of Police along is the
competent authority to initiate the disciplinary enquiry and
impose the major penalty and quashed the charge-sheet
issued by the D.I.G. On this ground alone, the charge-sheet
are liable to be quashed. Even otherwise in the year 1990,
the explanation was called from the petitioner and after
submission of the explanation, no action was taken against
the petitioner, therefore, on same charges, the issuance of
charge-sheet is not permissible.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Babulal Verma on 19 July, 2024
15. The petitioner has also challenged the charge-sheet on
the ground of authority that the D.I.G. is not the competent
authority to initiate the Departmental Eqnuiry. The Division
Bench in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav v/s The State of
Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in 2013 (3) M.P.L.J.
508 has held that disciplinary proceedings against an
Inspector of Police, the Superintendent of Police along is the
competent authority to initiate the disciplinary enquiry and
impose the major penalty and quashed the charge-sheet
issued by the D.I.G. On this ground alone, the charge-sheet
are liable to be quashed. Even otherwise in the year 1990,
the explanation was called from the petitioner and after
submission of the explanation, no action was taken against
the petitioner, therefore, on same charges, the issuance of
charge-sheet is not permissible.
Mahendra Prasad Ojha vs Home Department (Police) on 5 January, 2022
In
support of his contentions, he has placed relevance over the judgment
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Arun
Prakash Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & others 2013(3) MPLJ 508 (DB)
and State of M.P. & others Vs. Arun Prakash Yadav (R.P.
No.327/2013, decided on 20.12.2013 and State of M.P. & others Vs.
Satyendra Singh Bhadoriya 2018 (1) MPLJ 379.
Raghvendra Rishiswar vs State Of M.P. on 4 December, 2025
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the
petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub Inspector on 18.09.1992 and at
the relevant point of time petitioner was posted as a Station House Officer,
Police Station Piprai, District Ashoknagar, where a FIR was lodged by one
Shivraj Singh that his minor daughter aged 14 years has been kidnapped by
Chandrabhan. The petitioner being Station House Officer had arrested the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONIKA
SHARMA
Signing time: 12/6/2025
11:16:53 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31519
2 WP-2777-2012
culprit and the case was registered under Section 363, 366, and 376 of IPC.
The accused has committed suicide by hanging himself from the ventilator
by tying his neck by the red shirt. Due to the aforesaid suicide, Merg
No.4/2007 under Section 174 of CrPC was registered and due to the
custodial death, enquiry was conducted by SDM, Mungaoli and in the
inquiry, SDM found that there were no lapses on the part of the petitioner.
Despite the aforesaid enquiry report, DIG, Gwalior Range, Gwalior issued a
charge-sheet dated 09.04.2007. As per Police Regulation 228,
Superintendent of Police alone is competent to issue the charge-sheet up to
the rank of Inspector and the petitioner was Sub-Inspector, DIG is not
empowered to issue the charge-sheet. The similar controversy involved in
the present case has already been decided in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav
Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2013(3) MPLJ 508 . On the basis of
the aforesaid charge-sheet, The Enquiry Officer was appointed and no
Presenting Officer was appointed and submitted that the Enquiry Officer
himself acted as a Presenting Officer which is not permissible.
R.A. Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 October, 2024
16. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav
(supra) has held as under -
Ramlal Chadar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 November, 2022
7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the order passed is against Rule 15 of the CCA Rules is
misconceived. As CCA Rules are not applicable on the petitioner,
who is Class III employee in Police Establishment and governed
by Police Regulations and not by the Rules of 1966 as held in
2013(3) MPLJ 508 (Arun Prakash Yadav Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh) in para 14 and 15.
R.K. Richhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 April, 2023
8. Therefore, on the basis of mandate of Police Regulations 228 and 232,
which was later on discussed and affirmed by Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav (supra), the impugned orders
dated 12.1.2010 (Annexure P/10) and order dated 7.3.2011 (Annexure
P/11) are hereby set aside.
Laxman Lillore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 October, 2016
I am bound by Division Bench judgment
passed by this Court in Arun Prakash Yadav (supra). As per Rule 9 of the
C.C.A. Rules, the Appointing Authority is competent to place the petitioner
under suspension. The petitioner is admittedly appointed by the respondent
No.2. For this reason also, I am unable to hold that the petitioner was
placed under suspension by an incompetent authority. This is also trite that
singular different fact may change the precedential value of a judgment.
B.L. Dhuvkariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2017
3. Per contra, Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Govt.
Advocate opposed the said contention by contending that as per
the Division Bench order of this Court, reported in 2013 (3)
MPLJ 508 (Arun Prakash Yadav Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh), the Rules of 1966 are not applicable. Once the Rules
of 1966 are not applicable, Rule 18 of the said Rules, which
prescribes method of conducting joint inquiry, is of no assistance
to the petitioner. Shri Yadav submits that the Circular dated
31.07.2008 was issued prior to the judgment of Arun Prakash
(spra). After the said judgment, the said circular is of no help to
the petitioner. He further submits that the scope of judicial
review against the charge-sheet is limited. The charge-sheet is
not an order. It is only a notice against which a reply can be
filed. Petitioner can take all objections including the objection of
delay while filing the reply. At this stage, no interference may be
made against the charge-sheet.