Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)
Dr. Anoop Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 23 November, 2017 cites

Ram Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 January, 2010

Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner is posted at District Hospital, Morena (M.P.) on the post of Medical Specialist having charge of various other programmes in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The respondents have done monitoring in this regard for the period of 01/01/2013 to 16/03/2015. On 07/01/2014, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner wherein the allegations have been levelled that the petitioner was not present on duty time, was not giving sufficient time to OPD and not attending patients while he attended the patients at home resulting in deprivation of the medical facilities to the 2 WP No. 7157/2015 (Dr. Anoop Gupta Vs State of M.P. & others) patients at the hospital. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply wherein he explained his conduct and refuted the charges. After receiving the reply, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment vide order dated 21/07/2014 (Annexure P-2). Being aggrieved appeal was preferred.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 718 - Full Document

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

In view of the judgment in O.K. Bhardwaj (Supra), it is clear that when allegations are factual in nature and are denied by delinquent employee, enquiry needs to be conducted in order to fulfill 4 WP No. 7157/2015 (Dr. Anoop Gupta Vs State of M.P. & others) requirement of principle of natural justice. As noticed, in the present case, the petitioner specifically denied the allegation of the show cause notice and put forth his defence on the basis of factual assertions. It is not disputed that respondents have adopted the Rules of 1966. Under Rule, 16, the respondents may impose the punishment by way of summary enquiry. However, a bare perusal of Rule 16 also makes it clear that it contains an enabling provision of conducting a full fledged enquiry under Rule 14 of the said rules. Once, the allegations in the show cause notice are specifically refuted by filing a detailed reply on merits, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to conduct enquiry for the purpose of deciding the misconduct of the petitioner. Since factual allegations were denied and petitioner gave explanation on facts and merits, in the fitness of things, the disciplinary authority should have conducted an enquiry as per Rule 16 (1)(b) of CCA Rules of 1966. This would have been in consonance with the principle of natural justice. Apart from this, the discretion vested with the disciplinary authority to conduct an enquiry must be exercised in objective and judicious manner. The disciplinary authority in the present case has committed an error in not instituting the enquiry as per rules.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 117 - S D Pandit - Full Document

Bholeram Soni vs Union Of India on 9 January, 2015

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180, Ajay Kumar Singh Vs State of M.P. & others, 2008 (2) MPLJ 541 and Bholeram Vs Union of India and others 2015 (1) MPLJ 626, wherein it has been held that if charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, then enquiry should be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement can not be dispensed with.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - S Paul - Full Document
1