Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.96 seconds)

R.K. Richhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 April, 2023

34. From the above conspectus of facts and law, it is evident that neither in the case of N.K. Pandey (supra) nor in the case of Dalchand Ahirwar (supra) the question of applicability or non-applicability of the Rules of 1966 was raised or considered by this Court for deciding the question of competence of the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an Inspector of Police. Moreso, this Court in both these contrary decisions was not posed with, and, therefore, did not consider, the question as to whether mere declaration of the post of Inspector as Gazetted can induct by implication the post of Inspector into the Gazetted service constituted under the Gazetted Rules, without the said Rules being amended.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A Pathak - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mahesh Kumar Bhargave on 18 April, 2016

12. Though the writ Court has allowed the writ petition placing reliance over the judgment passed in Naresh Kumar Suryavanshi (Supra) and set-aside the chargesheet, but in case of Arun Prakash Yadav (Supra), the Division Bench on a reference has specifically held that the Superintendent of Police alone has been mentioned as authority to frame and issue the charge-sheet in respect of penalty or penalties.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1