Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)Y.S. Sachan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 5 August, 2003
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that thereafter
enquiry report has been submitted before the concerned authority and the said
authority has passed the punishment order dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure P-1), by
which, the impugned punishment withholding with one annual increment for
cumulative effect has been imposed and also mentioned that petitioner is not
entitled for the salary of suspension period. Thereafter petitioner has preferred an
appeal before the appellate authority. Appeal has been rejected by order dated
14.7.2015 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that if the minor penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner, then the petitioner
is entitled for the salary of suspension period as per the judgment passed in the
case of Y.S. Sachan Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2004 (1) MPHT 22 .
Union Of India & Ors vs P.Gunasekaran on 3 November, 2014
4. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State has
vehemently opposed the contentions and supported the impugned order stating that
the petitioner, who has participated in the departmental enquiry, has never raised
such objection before the authorities. It is only after conclusion of the
departmental enquiry and passing of the punishment order, such objection was
taken for the first time in this writ petition. It is argued that the interference with
respect to departmental enquiry is limited to the extent that there cannot be any
reappreciation of evidence at this stage. In this regard, certain parameters have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 2/13/2026
4:08:50 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5808
3 WP-8260-2015
been provided in the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect
to interference in the cases of departmental enquiry. Placing reliance upon the
judgment passed in the case of Union of India and others vs. P. Gunasekaran
reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Union Of India vs Ram Lakhan Sharma on 2 July, 2018
32. The Division Bench further held that where the Inquiry Officer acts
as Presenting Officer, bias can be presumed. In paragraph 9 is as
follows:
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs S.K. Pandey And Ors. on 19 September, 2002
8. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey and
another (2002) 10 SCC 471 in paragraph 5 has held as under -
Ram Prakash Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 August, 2022
8. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the Inquiry
Officer himself has acted as a Prosecutor in the case and has cross-examined the
witnesses, which is not permissible in law. The aforesaid aspect was considered in
the case of Ram Prakash Singh vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P.No.414 of 2002
decided on 16.11.2009 wherein the case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey
reported in (2002) 10 SCC 471 was taken note of and it has been held as under :
Shyam Sunder Singh Son Of Gaya Prasad ... vs State Of U.P. on 21 February, 2005
9. The case of the petitioner herein is that the Inquiry Officer has acted as
Prosecution Officer as he conducted cross-examination of the petitioner as well as
witnesses, which is in violation of the provisions of Clause (c) of Sub-rule (5) of
Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1966. The said issue has already been decided in the cases of Ram Prakash Gaya
Prashad v. State of M.P. reported in 2008 (4) MPLJ 35, K.C. Bhargava v. State of
M.P. reported in 2012 (4) MPLJ 244 and judgment dated 19.6.2007 passed by
this Court in W.P. No.5449/2006 (Abde Kasim Sheikh v. State of M.P.).
K.C. Bhargava vs The State Of M.P on 17 July, 2012
9. The case of the petitioner herein is that the Inquiry Officer has acted as
Prosecution Officer as he conducted cross-examination of the petitioner as well as
witnesses, which is in violation of the provisions of Clause (c) of Sub-rule (5) of
Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1966. The said issue has already been decided in the cases of Ram Prakash Gaya
Prashad v. State of M.P. reported in 2008 (4) MPLJ 35, K.C. Bhargava v. State of
M.P. reported in 2012 (4) MPLJ 244 and judgment dated 19.6.2007 passed by
this Court in W.P. No.5449/2006 (Abde Kasim Sheikh v. State of M.P.).
Abde Kasim Sheikh vs State Of M.P on 19 June, 2017
9. The case of the petitioner herein is that the Inquiry Officer has acted as
Prosecution Officer as he conducted cross-examination of the petitioner as well as
witnesses, which is in violation of the provisions of Clause (c) of Sub-rule (5) of
Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1966. The said issue has already been decided in the cases of Ram Prakash Gaya
Prashad v. State of M.P. reported in 2008 (4) MPLJ 35, K.C. Bhargava v. State of
M.P. reported in 2012 (4) MPLJ 244 and judgment dated 19.6.2007 passed by
this Court in W.P. No.5449/2006 (Abde Kasim Sheikh v. State of M.P.).
Union Of India vs D.K. Pandey on 1 September, 2017
8. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the Inquiry
Officer himself has acted as a Prosecutor in the case and has cross-examined the
witnesses, which is not permissible in law. The aforesaid aspect was considered in
the case of Ram Prakash Singh vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P.No.414 of 2002
decided on 16.11.2009 wherein the case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey
reported in (2002) 10 SCC 471 was taken note of and it has been held as under :
1