Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
Jagdish Chouhan (Baret) vs Home Department on 2 September, 2021 cites

O.K. Bhardwaj vs Union Of India And Ors. on 1 April, 1995

2) Draped in brevity, the relevant facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are that the appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector was served with a show cause notice dated 28/4/2015 (Annexure P/2). In turn, he filed his reply denied the charges and gave his factual explanation on 04/05/2015 (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, indisputably without conducting any departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority/Superintendent of Police (SP), Neemuch imposed a punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect which will have no adverse impact on future increments/pension. Aggrieved, appellant preferred an appeal which was rejected by order dated 01/04/2016. Assailing the disciplinary proceedings, punishment and appellate orders, the appellant filed aforesaid writ petition. Contending inter alia i) the show cause notice was not for imposition of punishment, indeed it was a notice directing the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings should 3 WA No.497/2020 not be initiated. ii) No show cause notice/charge-sheet as contemplated under Rule 16 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (CCA Rules) or as per the analogous provision is Regulation 214 of M.P. Police Regulations was ever issued. iii) Without holding any inquiry, the punishment was imposed which runs contrary to principles of natural justice and judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180 (O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India & Ors.). iv) The Disciplinary Authority although intended to inflict the punishment of stoppage of increment which does not have any future effect on further increments and retiral dues, fact remains that petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30/06/2017. His previous increment was due on 01/07/2016 and, therefore, he stood retired a day before his next increment was due. Thus, his retiral dues were calculated on the basis of his last pay drawn which was devoid of the said increment. Thus, in fact and effect, the punishment has an adverse impact on his retiral dues i.e. pension, gratuity and leave encashment.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 117 - S D Pandit - Full Document

Bholeram Soni vs Union Of India on 9 January, 2015

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 3 - Cited by 10 - S Paul - Full Document

Union Of India Etc. Etc vs K.V. Jankiraman Etc. Etc on 27 August, 1991

In the case of (1991) 4 SCC 109 (Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors.), the Apex Court made it clear that disciplinary proceedings begins with issuance of charge memorandum. In the instant case, no charge memorandum was issued and on the basis of aforesaid show cause notice dated 28/04/2015 which was a notice for the purpose of 'initiating' the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was punished.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1332 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Apparel Export Promotion Council vs A.K. Chopra on 20 January, 1999

13) In view of judgments of Supreme Court reported in (1999) 1 SCC 759 (Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra), (2007) 7 SCC 236 (Bank of India vs. T. Jogram), (2009) 8 SCC 310 (State of U.P. vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha), (2020) 3 SCC 423 (State of Karnatka vs. N. Gangaraj) and (2020) 9 SCC 471 (Pravin kumar vs. Union of India), the judicial review on a disciplinary proceeding is mainly confined on the decision making process or in other words, on the aspect of procedural impropriety. If impugned disciplinary proceedings are tested on the anvil of principles of natural justice, it will be clear like cloudless sky that the show cause notice nowhere indicates that it 'initiates' the disciplinary proceeding. At the cost of repetition, the show cause notice directs the petitioner to file reply as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be 'initiated' against him. Thereafter, petitioner filed a reply on facts, but without holding any 7 WA No.497/2020 inquiry, the punishment order is passed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 566 - V N Khare - Full Document

Bank Of India & Ors vs T. Jogram on 2 August, 2007

13) In view of judgments of Supreme Court reported in (1999) 1 SCC 759 (Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra), (2007) 7 SCC 236 (Bank of India vs. T. Jogram), (2009) 8 SCC 310 (State of U.P. vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha), (2020) 3 SCC 423 (State of Karnatka vs. N. Gangaraj) and (2020) 9 SCC 471 (Pravin kumar vs. Union of India), the judicial review on a disciplinary proceeding is mainly confined on the decision making process or in other words, on the aspect of procedural impropriety. If impugned disciplinary proceedings are tested on the anvil of principles of natural justice, it will be clear like cloudless sky that the show cause notice nowhere indicates that it 'initiates' the disciplinary proceeding. At the cost of repetition, the show cause notice directs the petitioner to file reply as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be 'initiated' against him. Thereafter, petitioner filed a reply on facts, but without holding any 7 WA No.497/2020 inquiry, the punishment order is passed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 74 - H K Sema - Full Document

State Of U.P.& Anr vs Man Mohan Nath Sinha & Anr on 17 August, 2009

13) In view of judgments of Supreme Court reported in (1999) 1 SCC 759 (Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra), (2007) 7 SCC 236 (Bank of India vs. T. Jogram), (2009) 8 SCC 310 (State of U.P. vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha), (2020) 3 SCC 423 (State of Karnatka vs. N. Gangaraj) and (2020) 9 SCC 471 (Pravin kumar vs. Union of India), the judicial review on a disciplinary proceeding is mainly confined on the decision making process or in other words, on the aspect of procedural impropriety. If impugned disciplinary proceedings are tested on the anvil of principles of natural justice, it will be clear like cloudless sky that the show cause notice nowhere indicates that it 'initiates' the disciplinary proceeding. At the cost of repetition, the show cause notice directs the petitioner to file reply as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be 'initiated' against him. Thereafter, petitioner filed a reply on facts, but without holding any 7 WA No.497/2020 inquiry, the punishment order is passed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 241 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Pravin Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors on 10 September, 2020

13) In view of judgments of Supreme Court reported in (1999) 1 SCC 759 (Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra), (2007) 7 SCC 236 (Bank of India vs. T. Jogram), (2009) 8 SCC 310 (State of U.P. vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha), (2020) 3 SCC 423 (State of Karnatka vs. N. Gangaraj) and (2020) 9 SCC 471 (Pravin kumar vs. Union of India), the judicial review on a disciplinary proceeding is mainly confined on the decision making process or in other words, on the aspect of procedural impropriety. If impugned disciplinary proceedings are tested on the anvil of principles of natural justice, it will be clear like cloudless sky that the show cause notice nowhere indicates that it 'initiates' the disciplinary proceeding. At the cost of repetition, the show cause notice directs the petitioner to file reply as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be 'initiated' against him. Thereafter, petitioner filed a reply on facts, but without holding any 7 WA No.497/2020 inquiry, the punishment order is passed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 87 - S Kant - Full Document

State Of M.P. Through Cooperative ... vs Vishnu Prasad Maran on 19 January, 2021

17) A bare perusal of said Pension Rule makes it clear that this enabling provision can be invoked when pensioner is found guilty of "grave misconduct". If Police Regulations or CCA Rules are examined, it will be clear that punishments prescribed are of two kinds. The minor punishments are to be imposed for committing minor misconduct, whereas major punishments can be imposed for committing gross/grave/major misconduct. Thus, intention of law makers is clear that Rule 9 can be invoked only when the delinquent employee/pensioner is charged for committing grave/major misconduct. A plain reading of punishment order clearly shows that the disciplinary authority has not treated the misconduct as grave and, therefore, neither major penalty charge-sheet was issued to him followed by a full-fledged departmental inquiry nor a major punishment was imposed. Thus, in a case of this nature, where a minor punishment was imposed which was found to be defective, after the retirement of the employee, the matter cannot be remitted back for conducting further inquiry. We have recently taken this view in 2021(3) MPLJ 90 (State of M.P. vs. Vishnu Prasad Maran). The relevant portion reads as under:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - S Paul - Full Document
1