Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)State Of M.P. Through Cooperative ... vs Vishnu Prasad Maran on 19 January, 2021
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vikram
Singh Rana vs Principal Secretary, reported in 2013 (2) MPLJ 232, State of
M.P. vs Vishnu Prasad Maran, reported in 2021 (3) MPLJ 90 and Balendra
Singh vs State of MP reported in 2023 SCC Online 2769. Under these
circumstances, he has prayed for interference in the impugned order.
Union Of India & Ors vs P.Gunasekaran on 3 November, 2014
6. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents/State has vehemently
opposed the contention stating that the petitioner was granted opportunity of
hearing at every stage of the proceedings and only after full-fledged enquiry,
the impugned punishment order was passed. The show cause notice was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 09-09-2025
19:09:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:42860
4 WP-24349-2018
issued to the petitioner along with inquiry report. The reply submitted by the
petitioner was not found satisfactory by the disciplinary authority and
consequently the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of withholding
two increments with cumulative effect. There was no procedural flaw in the
enquiry conducted against the petitioner. The appellate authority did not find
any reason to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority and
therefore, rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. While placing
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India vs P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 and Union of India
and others vs Dalbir Singh reported in (2021) 11 SCC 321, he prays for
dismissal of the petition.
Union Of India & Ors vs Dalbir Singh & Anr on 8 May, 2009
6. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents/State has vehemently
opposed the contention stating that the petitioner was granted opportunity of
hearing at every stage of the proceedings and only after full-fledged enquiry,
the impugned punishment order was passed. The show cause notice was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 09-09-2025
19:09:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:42860
4 WP-24349-2018
issued to the petitioner along with inquiry report. The reply submitted by the
petitioner was not found satisfactory by the disciplinary authority and
consequently the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of withholding
two increments with cumulative effect. There was no procedural flaw in the
enquiry conducted against the petitioner. The appellate authority did not find
any reason to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority and
therefore, rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. While placing
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India vs P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 and Union of India
and others vs Dalbir Singh reported in (2021) 11 SCC 321, he prays for
dismissal of the petition.
National Fertilizers Ltd. And Anr. vs P.K. Khanna on 2 September, 2005
10. The law to the aforesaid proposition is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of National Fertilizers Ltd. v. P.K. Khanna, (2005) 7 SCC
597 wherein it has been held as under :
Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
11. The respondent's reliance on the decision in M.D., ECIL v. B.
Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727] is misplaced. That decision relates to
the right of a delinquent officer to a copy of the enquiry officer's report.
In the course of the judgment, the Court had no doubt said that the
report of the enquiry officer is required to be furnished to the employee
to make proper representation to the disciplinary authority before such
authority arrives at its own finding with regard to the guilt or otherwise
of the employee and the punishment, if any, to be awarded to him. By
using the phrase "its own finding" what is meant is an independent
decision of the disciplinary authority. It does not require the
disciplinary authority to record separate reasons from those given by
the enquiry officer. The concurrence of the disciplinary authority with
the reasoning and conclusion of the enquiry officer means that the
disciplinary authority has adopted the conclusion and the basis of the
conclusion as its own. It is not necessary for the disciplinary authority
to restate the reasoning.
Balendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 August, 2023
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vikram
Singh Rana vs Principal Secretary, reported in 2013 (2) MPLJ 232, State of
M.P. vs Vishnu Prasad Maran, reported in 2021 (3) MPLJ 90 and Balendra
Singh vs State of MP reported in 2023 SCC Online 2769. Under these
circumstances, he has prayed for interference in the impugned order.
Ram Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 20 August, 1987
"8. In view of the contents of the impugned order, it is difficult to say
that the punishing authority had not applied his mind to the case before
terminating the services of the appellant. The punishing authority has
placed reliance upon the report of the enquiry officer which means that
he has not only agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, but also
has accepted the reasons given by him for the findings. In our opinion,
when the punishing authority agrees with the findings of the enquiry
officer and accepts the reasons given by him in support of such
findings, it is not necessary for the punishing authority to again discuss
evidence and come to the same findings as that of the enquiry officer
and give the same reasons for the findings. We are unable to accept the
contention made on behalf of the appellant that the impugned order of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 09-09-2025
19:09:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:42860
6 WP-24349-2018
termination is vitiated as it is a non-speaking order and does not
contain any reason. When by the impugned order the punishing
authority has accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and the
reasons given by him, the question of non-compliance with the
principles of natural justice does not arise. It is also incorrect to say
that the impugned order is not a speaking order."
Union Of India Through Ministry Of ... vs Vishwas Nimgaonkar on 21 January, 2020
In the case of Union
Of India vs Vishwas Nimgaonkar, reported in 2021 (1) Supreme 650, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :
Vikram Singh Mangertiya vs Principal Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 24 April, 2023
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vikram
Singh Rana vs Principal Secretary, reported in 2013 (2) MPLJ 232, State of
M.P. vs Vishnu Prasad Maran, reported in 2021 (3) MPLJ 90 and Balendra
Singh vs State of MP reported in 2023 SCC Online 2769. Under these
circumstances, he has prayed for interference in the impugned order.
1