Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)
Dharmendra Silarpuriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2024 cites

K. Prabhakara Rao vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 April, 2001

9. Impugned order 16.9.2016 was passed by Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, Bhopal, wherein it is mentioned that after serving the charge sheet, petitioner was permitted to file the return/reply and after examining the reply submitted by petitioner, the reply was not found satisfactory and the order of imposing penalty and recovery was passed. So far as objection regarding maintainability Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 3/13/2024 2:10:13 PM 7 of petition and not availing the statutory rule of appeal provided Rule 23 of 1966 is concerned, there may not be any quarrel to the effect that impugned order is appealable. But despite preferring appeal, petitioner chose to prefer the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India mainly on the ground of not conducting detailed departmental inquiry before inflicting punishment. Present petition is pending since 2018 and after a period of five years, relegating the petitioner to avail statutory remedy of appeal, is not justified. Even in the present matter, it appears that in light of judgment of Supreme Court delivered in O.K. Bhardwaj (supra), respondent No.2 was required to conduct a detailed departmental inquiry before inflicting any punishment but since that procedure is not followed and order of punishment was passed, it appears that the present case is an example of violation of principle of natural justice and it is trite law that if there is violation of natural justice, aggrieved person may approach directly to High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without availing statutory remedy of appeal. Resultantly, objection raised by learned Panel Lawyer regarding maintainability of present petition is overruled.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs P.N. Raikwar on 18 December, 2018

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 0 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 Next