Judgments - Departmental Enquiry
Ram Lal Versus State of Rajasthan
SANTOSH SONDHIA VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus Bharat Singh Jhala (Dead) Son of Shri Nathu Singh, through Legal Heirs & Anr.
Mahesh Singh Sikarwar Versus Union Of India
Ram Singh Gamad Versus The State Of M.P.
Pankaj Tiwari Versus Union of India
Keshav Dubey Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Jai Kumar Bajpai (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Smt. Chandrakanta Bajpai Versus Chairman-Cum-Managing Director
KALYAN DOMBIVALI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VERSUS SANJAY GAJANAN GHARAT AND ANOTHER
Alok Ranjan, Vs. The National Institute of Technology
SUNNY ABRAHAM VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Deenbandhu Saket Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others.
Law laid down - The delinquent employee in a disciplinary proceeding has a statutory right under Rule 18(4) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, to engage a Defence Assistant for which the Disciplinary Authority/Inquiry Officer ought to assist the delinquent employee so that the requirement of reasonable opportunity of being heard is satisfied. Full Judgment
Chief General Manager, S.E.C.L vs. Chandramani Tiwari
THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VERSUS M.J. JAMES
Tarun Kumar Mishra Versus State of M.P. & Ors.
Law laid down - As per the provisions of Rule 14 of MP Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966, the disciplinary authority has to apply its mind separately at two different stages, (i) initiation of proceeding and (ii) approval of charge-sheet. It is not enough that if the disciplinary authority has formed an opinion to initiate the disciplinary proceeding and signed it, but for issuance of charge-sheet it would not be required to sign it by the disciplinary authority. Full Judgment
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. VERSUS SHYAM LAL JAISWAL
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK VERSUS R.C. SRIVASTAVA
Rajendra Kumar Gautam Vs. State of MP
Law laid down - 1. Departmental inquiry and FIR/Criminal case based on same facts/incident – In every case, it cannot be said as a rule of thumb that exoneration in departmental enquiry on merits must result into setting aside of FIR. If it is found on merits that there is no contravention of the provision of the Act in the departmental inquiry, the continuance of trial of person concerned can be treated as an abuse of the process of the Court. 2. Full Judgment
Suraj Pal Singh Rathor vs. M.P. High Court and another
Law laid down - The scope of interference in a writ petition against the order of punishment passed in the departmental inquiry is limited. The Court does not sit in appeal against the order passed in the departmental inquiry. Unless it is shown by the petitioner that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure or there was any violation of the principles of natural justice, no interference in the inquiry proceeding is required. Interference in the departmental Full Judgment
Amit Chaurasia Vs. The State of M.P. & another
Law laid down - Applying an exception for not conducting a regular departmental enquiry to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank. For major penalties there must be some strong and cogent reason with the Authority competent to impose such punishment and should be assigned in writing as to why enquiry is not reasonable and practicable to be held. Imposing major penalties applying the exception of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India is always a ground of Full Judgment