SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(MP) 63

ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
Chandan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Dr. Indra Kumar Mishra for petitioner; Ravindra Dixit, Government Advocate for respondents/State.

ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

^^7-1 ;g fd] vihy esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 5-3-2012 ,oa foÒkxh; tk¡p esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 24-11-2010 fujLr djus dh Ñik djsaA

7-2 ;g fd] çkFkÊ d¢ fgr esa vU; d¨Ã lgk;rk g¨ mls çnku djsaA**

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to imposing the major penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect, the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the reply dated 20.8.2010 (Annexure P/20). It is further submitted that without dealing with the facts and grounds raised in the said reply, a non-speaking and unreasoned order imposing the impugned major punishment was passed by order dated 24.11.2010. This aspect was also not considered by the appellate Authority, which rejected the petitioner’s appeal by order dated 5.3.2012.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that the appellate Authority duly considered each and every fact mentioned in the appeal memo and passed a reasoned and speaking order/ appeal rejection order dated 5.3.2012 (Annexure P/1). It is further submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of punishm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top