Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs P.N. Raikwar on 18 December, 2018

Tribal Welfare Department vs Suresh Tiwari on 22 September, 2022

Although the name of Government is there in the order dated 29.08.1997 but it was passed on advice of the department, therefore, an appeal has rightly been preferred before the Governor to be decided in the personal capacity as held by the Larger Bench in Para 23 of State of M.P. & Anr. Vs. P.N. Raikwar (supra). The Writ Court has wrongly remanded back the matter to Governor for adjudication.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - V Rusia - Full Document

Dharmendra Silarpuriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2024

7. In the present matter, charge sheet was issued to petitioner wherein specific charges were levelled against him. Petitioner filed his reply to the said charge sheet and as the reply was not satisfactory, order of imposing of minor penalty was passed and it is not a case of violation of principle of natural justice. Learned Panel Lawyer relied on judgment of Larger Bench passed in W.A. No.968/2018 (State of M.P. and another vs. P.N. Raikwar), wherein it is held that even if an order passed in the name of Governor, appeal shall lie as the order has not been passed by a Governor personally and appeal would lie under Rule 23 of Service Rules. He prays for dismissal of the order. The relevant portion of judgment is extracted herein below:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deepak Billore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 September, 2024

16. Even otherwise, it is no longer res-integra that wherever something is required to be done by the Governor, then it has not to be done personally by the Governor and the decision can be taken in name of Governor as per the Rules of business of executive government framed under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution of India. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. P.N. Raikwar, reported in 2018 IPR MP 2696 (FB) considered this issue and held that where power has been vested In Governor, it is not the power to be exercised by the Governor personally, but in terms of Rule of Business by the 'Council of Ministers' or the Minister as may be warranted in the Rules of Business.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Parag Bhartiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 September, 2024

16. Even otherwise, it is no longer res-integra that wherever something is required to be done by the Governor, then it has not to be done personally by the Governor and the decision can be taken in name of Governor as per the Rules of business of executive government framed under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution of India. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. P.N. Raikwar, reported in 2018 IPR MP 2696 (FB) considered this issue and held that where power has been vested In Governor, it is not the power to be exercised by the Governor personally, but in terms of Rule of Business by the 'Council of Ministers' or the Minister as may be warranted in the Rules of Business.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amit Kumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 March, 2025

5. On notice being issued, a reply has been filed by the respondents and a preliminary objection is taken by the respondents with respect to maintainability of the petition without availing the alternative and efficacious remedy. It is contended that under Rule 24 of Rules, 1966, an alternative and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 6 WP-9940-2022 efficacious remedy of Appeal is available to the petitioner and without availing the said remedy, the present petition is not maintainable. He has heavily relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. P.N. Raikwar reported in ILR 2018 MP 2619.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - V Mishra - Full Document

Dr. S.M.H. Zaidi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2024

16. A Full Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.968/2018 (State of M.P. and another vs. P.N. Raikwar) has dealt with the similar issue and it has been held by the Full Bench that authentication of an order of punishment in the name of Governor is an order of the State Government against which appeal would lie to the Governor and no appeal would lie to the Governor, if order is passed by him personally. Once the order is not passed by the Governor personally, but has been passed in the name of Governor, then an appeal would lie under the Service Rules. It is further held by the Full Bench that the appellate authority shall be Governor, but again it is not the power to be exercised by the Governor personally, but in terms of Rule of Business by the "Council of Ministers".
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanjay Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 March, 2025

1 5 . At this stage, the preliminary objection raised by learned Additional Advocate General needs to considered. As state above, the impugned order has been passed in the name of and by the order of Governor. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. & another vs. P.N. Raikwar reported in 2018 SCC Online MP 1752 has examined this issue and has held in para 23 as under:
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next