Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.80 seconds)

Arun Prakash Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 31 March, 2016

15. The petitioner has also challenged the charge-sheet on the ground of authority that the D.I.G. is not the competent authority to initiate the Departmental Eqnuiry. The Division Bench in the case of Arun Prakash Yadav v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in 2013 (3) M.P.L.J. 508 has held that disciplinary proceedings against an Inspector of Police, the Superintendent of Police along is the competent authority to initiate the disciplinary enquiry and impose the major penalty and quashed the charge-sheet issued by the D.I.G. On this ground alone, the charge-sheet are liable to be quashed. Even otherwise in the year 1990, the explanation was called from the petitioner and after submission of the explanation, no action was taken against the petitioner, therefore, on same charges, the issuance of charge-sheet is not permissible.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

State Of Uttaranchal vs Sandeep Kumar Singh & Ors on 7 October, 2010

18. The High Court of Uttaranchal went to hold that the impugned order suffers from illegality as the appointing authority of the petitioner therein is the University and the University has acted at the dictate of the State Government which has no power to ask for cancellation of an appointment made in accordance with the advertisement. The aforesaid judgment has been affirmed by the Apex Court Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006 (State of Uttaranchal v/s Sandeep Kumar Singh & Others) by holding that the impugned order of the High Court does not appear to us to be legally flawed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 183 - Full Document
1