AI Overview...
-
Rule 18 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - This rule primarily governs the initiation and conduct of departmental inquiries against civil servants. It stipulates that a departmental enquiry must be initiated following a proper charge-sheet issued by the competent authority, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness S. N. Singh VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh, Alexius Minj (Died) Through LRs. VS State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Home - Chhattisgarh, Rajendra Singh Kushwah VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh, Sardar Badeosingh Nageenasingh VS State of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh, Jagdish Rathi VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh, RAJARAM VERMA vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Madhya Pradesh, State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home Affairs VS Loman Lakara S/o Lalu Lakra - Chhattisgarh.
-
Violation of Rule 18 - Several cases highlight violations of Rule 18, such as conducting inquiries without proper charge-sheets, bypassing the required procedures, or proceeding without jurisdiction, leading to legal invalidation of disciplinary actions. Courts have set aside orders passed in violation of Rule 18, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance S. N. Singh VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh, Rajendra Singh Kushwah VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh, Sardar Badeosingh Nageenasingh VS State of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh, State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home Affairs VS Loman Lakara S/o Lalu Lakra - Chhattisgarh.
-
Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness - The rule enforces principles of natural justice, including adequate notice, opportunity to be heard, and fair inquiry procedures. Violations of these principles, especially under Rules 14 and 15, result in the quashing of disciplinary proceedings Harish Kumar Tiwari VS State of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh.
-
Legal and Judicial Interpretations - Courts have consistently held that non-compliance with Rule 18's procedural requirements renders disciplinary actions invalid. For example, failure to follow proper enquiry procedures or exceeding jurisdiction has led to orders being annulled or set aside 02700002404, RAJARAM VERMA vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Madhya Pradesh.
-
Application in Disciplinary Actions - Rule 18 is central to disciplinary proceedings, including cases of compulsory retirement, suspension, or dismissal. Proper adherence ensures legality and fairness of such actions, while violations can lead to legal challenges and reversal of disciplinary measures Rajendra Singh Kushwah VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh, Sardar Badeosingh Nageenasingh VS State of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh.
Analysis and Conclusion:
Rule 18 of the Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, is a crucial procedural safeguard ensuring that departmental inquiries are conducted fairly and legally. Violations of this rule, such as initiating inquiries without proper charge-sheets or bypassing procedural requirements, undermine the legality of disciplinary actions. Courts have consistently emphasized compliance with Rule 18 to uphold principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, and non-compliance often results in the annulment of disciplinary orders S. N. Singh VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh, Rajendra Singh Kushwah VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh, Sardar Badeosingh Nageenasingh VS State of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, adherence to Rule 18 is essential for the validity of disciplinary proceedings against civil servants.
Search Results for "18 of m P Civil Services Classification Control Appeal Rules 1966"
2005 0 Supreme(MP) 84 • India - Madhya Pradesh
A.K.SHRIVASTAVA
Joint Enquiry - Violation of Rule 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - The ... Issues: Violation of Rule 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, Joint ... Civil Services....
2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 215 • India - Chhattisgarh
GOUTAM BHADURI
of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966. ... of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966, which allows for disciplinary action against ... Joint Enquiry - Service Termination - Chhattisgarh Civil Services (#HL_....
2010 0 Supreme(Chh) 261 • India - Chhattisgarh
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 - 18 - The court discussed the violation of Rule 18 of the Rules of ... Ratio Decidendi: The violation of Rule 18 of the Rules of 1966, which required an order for conducting common proceedings ... Consequently, the orders passed in appeal and mercy petition were also set aside. .......
2016 0 Supreme(MP) 955 • India - Madhya Pradesh
ROHIT ARYA
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Rule 18 of the M.P. ... Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - IPC Sections 224 and 225 - Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution ... The disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner from serv....
1989 0 Supreme(MP) 111 • India - Madhya Pradesh
K.L.SHRIVASTAVA
CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1966 - RULE 18(1) - COMPULSORY RETIREMENT - VALIDITY - ORDER PASSED BY ... Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 has been violated and if so, what would be the effect? ... Civil Services (Classific....
2017 0 Supreme(MP) 939 • India - Madhya Pradesh
VANDANA KASREKAR
Natural Justice - Violation of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - Rule 14(18) - Rule 15 - Rule ... of principles of natural justice in the context of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, specifically ... Rule 14(18), Rule 15, and Rule 32. ... He f....
2008 0 Supreme(All) 1873 • India - Allahabad
SUNIL AMBWANI, RAJ MANI CHAUHAN
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965—Rule 14(2)—Public Servants (Enquiries) Act, 1850—Section 3—Indian ... Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968—Rules 9(2) and 18(11)—Railways Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966—Rule 3(1)—Central ... [Paras 2, 3, 6, 12, 16, 17 and 18] ... ... The petitioner, instead of fili....
2008 0 Supreme(MP) 1014 • India - Madhya Pradesh
SHANTANU KEMKAR
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M.P.) -- R. 18 -- joint departmental enquiry against petitioner ... 2005 (II) MPLJ 18 relied on. ... gSA 2005 ¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 18 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 9 ... Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short '....
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 7122 • India - High Court of Madhya Pradesh
VIVEK JAIN, J
(A) Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - Rule 18 - Departmental Enquiry - Petitioner ... Civil Services rules in police disciplinary matters. ... Services Rules - The court held that the Superintendent of Police is the competent authority to issue charge-sheets concerning Inspectors ... Civil #HL_STAR....
2018 0 Supreme(Chh) 181 • India - Chhattisgarh
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, SHARAD KUMAR GUPTA
Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - Rule 18 - Jurisdictional ... learned Single Judge does not result in any illegality or jurisdictional infirmity - That direction also therefore stands - Writ appeal ... that proceeding impugned in the writ petitions were illegal and had infracted Rule 18 of the Rules - learned Single Judge was therefore ... The learned ....
Filter by Legal Phrase
