Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.47 seconds)
Amit Kumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 March, 2025 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs B.V.Gopinath on 5 September, 2013

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and Others Vs. B.V. Gopinath reported in (2014) 1 SCC 351, Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2013) 4 SCC 3 0 1 , Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others reported i n (2009) 2 SCC 570, G. Vallikumari Vs. Andhra Education Society and Others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 497, Union of India and Others Vs. R.P. Singh reported in (2014) 7 SCC 340, Union of India and Others Vs. S.K. Kapoor reported in (2011) 4 SCC 589 and Union of India and Others Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma reported in (2018) 7 SCC 670 as well as the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 5 WP-9940-2022 others Vs. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, Bhopal reported in ILR 2004 MP 821 and argued that there is no procedure followed by the enquiry officer while conducting departmental enquiry. The entire enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer is verbatim to that of preliminary enquiry report. No witnesses were examined by the Department. No opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner to put up his defence. There is no application of mind by the enquiry officer while submitting enquiry report. Even otherwise, the Authorities have not taken into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner and without verification of the facts that the so called allegations leveled regarding procurement of government job based upon the false and fabricated documents, the said documents could have been verified and ascertained from the competent Authorities i.e. the School Department/ Board from which the petitioner has passed out his Class 10th and 12th as well as from the Colleges or the Universities from which the petitioner has imparted his higher education. Without ascertaining the aforesaid aspects, how the Authorities have arrived at a conclusion that the charges No.1 and 2 levied against the petitioner were found to be false and fabricated. The enquiry was to be conducted in a manner known to law which has not been done in the present case. Therefore, she has paid for quashment of the impugned order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 278 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 19 December, 2008

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and Others Vs. B.V. Gopinath reported in (2014) 1 SCC 351, Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2013) 4 SCC 3 0 1 , Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others reported i n (2009) 2 SCC 570, G. Vallikumari Vs. Andhra Education Society and Others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 497, Union of India and Others Vs. R.P. Singh reported in (2014) 7 SCC 340, Union of India and Others Vs. S.K. Kapoor reported in (2011) 4 SCC 589 and Union of India and Others Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma reported in (2018) 7 SCC 670 as well as the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 5 WP-9940-2022 others Vs. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, Bhopal reported in ILR 2004 MP 821 and argued that there is no procedure followed by the enquiry officer while conducting departmental enquiry. The entire enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer is verbatim to that of preliminary enquiry report. No witnesses were examined by the Department. No opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner to put up his defence. There is no application of mind by the enquiry officer while submitting enquiry report. Even otherwise, the Authorities have not taken into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner and without verification of the facts that the so called allegations leveled regarding procurement of government job based upon the false and fabricated documents, the said documents could have been verified and ascertained from the competent Authorities i.e. the School Department/ Board from which the petitioner has passed out his Class 10th and 12th as well as from the Colleges or the Universities from which the petitioner has imparted his higher education. Without ascertaining the aforesaid aspects, how the Authorities have arrived at a conclusion that the charges No.1 and 2 levied against the petitioner were found to be false and fabricated. The enquiry was to be conducted in a manner known to law which has not been done in the present case. Therefore, she has paid for quashment of the impugned order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 1059 - S B Sinha - Full Document

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

5. On notice being issued, a reply has been filed by the respondents and a preliminary objection is taken by the respondents with respect to maintainability of the petition without availing the alternative and efficacious remedy. It is contended that under Rule 24 of Rules, 1966, an alternative and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-08-2025 12:59:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35913 6 WP-9940-2022 efficacious remedy of Appeal is available to the petitioner and without availing the said remedy, the present petition is not maintainable. He has heavily relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. P.N. Raikwar reported in ILR 2018 MP 2619.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 Next