slcdailylaw
  • Home
  • Topic Search
  • Advanced Search
  • Citation Search
  • Bookmarks
  • Login
  1. Home
  2. Latest Cases
(1) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 173(1)—Appeal Against MACT Award—Insurance Company appealed award fixing liability upon them; issues included seating capacity, premium paid, and applicability of Motor Vehicle Rules. [Para 1] B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 147—Liability of Insurance Company—Insurer not liable for death/injury of passenger if policy does not cover risk for such passenger and no additional premium paid. [Para 12] C. Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994—Rule 97(7)—Insurance Liability—Rule 97 pertains to permit conditions; does not determine insurer’s liability under Section 147. [Para 11] D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Insurance Policy—Seating Capacity & Premium—Policy specifying seating for only driver with no extra premium e...

Disposed of
(2) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

A. Pension Rules, 1976—Rule 9—Withholding Pension—Opportunity of Hearing—Even if statute is silent, retired employee must be given opportunity to be heard before pension is withheld or withdrawn, as pension is a right and adverse action has civil consequences. [Paras 17–21] B. Pension Rules, 1976—Rule 9—Authority’s Application of Mind—Authority must consider gravity of offense, punishment imposed, and extenuating circumstances before deciding on withholding or withdrawing pension. [Para 17] C. Pension Rules, 1976—Rule 9—Consultation with PSC—Mandatory consultation with State Public Service Commission required; failure vitiates proceedings. [Para 23] D. Pension Rules, 1976—Rule 9(1)—Definition of Pension—“Pension” includes gratuit...

(3) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

A. Departmental Enquiry—Natural Justice—A departmental enquiry must comply with principles of natural justice—This includes: providing the employee a copy of the inquiry report, allowing a reply to findings, recording witness statements in the employee’s presence, and granting an opportunity for cross-examination—Failure to observe these procedures renders the resulting punishment invalid. [Paras 2, 5, 15] B. Disciplinary Authority—Speaking Orders—Disciplinary authorities exercise quasi-judicial powers, and their orders must be speaking—This means the authority must apply its mind to the facts, consider the circumstances, and provide valid, justifiable reasons for the conclusions—Non-speaking or cryptic orders are liable to be quashed. [Paras 2, 8, 11] C. Appellate Authority&mdas...

(4) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

A. Suspension of Government Servant—Payment of Allowances—A government servant suspended due to arrest in a criminal case is not automatically entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period if the prosecution was not initiated by the department—Fundamental Rule 54-B(3) allows full pay and allowances only when the suspension is wholly unjustified. [Para 9] B. Criminal Case and Suspension—Justification—Suspension imposed under departmental rules following a police arrest cannot be considered wholly unjustified, even if the employee is later acquitted—Suspension in such cases is a mandatory administrative action. [Paras 8, 11] C. Acquittal in Criminal Case—Entitlement to Back Wages—A government servant acquitted after being involved in a criminal case is generally not entit...

(5) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

A. Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Judicial Review of Administrative Actions—Punishments imposed by disciplinary and appellate authorities must be based on valid, justifiable reasons—Arbitrary or unexplained orders are liable to be set aside. [Paras 11, 13, 14, 16, 17] B. Government Servants—Misconduct—Acts of isolated carelessness or procedural lapses do not automatically constitute misconduct unless accompanied by mens rea or gross negligence. [Para 18] C. Administrative Law—Speaking Orders—Quasi-judicial and administrative authorities must provide reasoned, clear, and intelligible orders that demonstrate application of mind to facts and circumstances. [Paras 11, 13, 14, 16, 17] D. Service Law—Disciplinary Proceedings—Discrimination—Punishments imposed ba...

Disposed of
(6) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

A. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966—Rule 13(2)—Initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings—A disciplinary authority competent to impose only minor penalties may still initiate major penalty proceedings. [Paras 13–14] B. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966—Rule 14(21)—Imposition of Major Penalty—If a major penalty is warranted, an authority competent to impose only minor penalties must transmit the inquiry records to the authority competent to impose major penalties. [Paras 15–16] C. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966—Rules 10, 12, 13 & 14—Competence to Impose Punishment—A Collector empowered only to impose minor penalties on Class-III & IV employees is competent to initiate majo...

Disposed of
(7) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

A. Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966—Rule 15(1)—Further Inquiry vs. De Novo Inquiry—Rule 15(1) permits the disciplinary authority to remit a case for further inquiry, but it does not authorize a fresh or de novo inquiry—A de novo inquiry requires initiation of a completely new inquiry process. [Paras 5, 10, 11] B. Administrative Law—Reasoned Decisions—Administrative and quasi-judicial authorities must provide clear and reasoned decisions—Decisions must be intelligible to the affected party, and arbitrary, biased, or unexplained conclusions are impermissible. [Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15] C. Service Law—Departmental Enquiry—Punishment—While a disciplinary authority may order a new inquiry if defects exist in the original process, it ...

(8) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
Motor Accident Claims

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 146—Compulsory Third-Party Insurance—The insurer of a tractor is liable for an accident caused by the tractor pulling an uninsured trailer, as the tractor’s operation was the proximate cause of the accident—Liability under compulsory third-party insurance extends to incidents arising from the tractor-trailer combination. (Para 12) B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 166—Assessment of Income—When claimants fail to produce documentary evidence of the deceased’s income, but the evidence indicates the deceased was skilled, the deceased’s income should be assessed in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act for a skilled worker. (Para 16) C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 166—Deduction for Personal Expenses—For deceased indivi...

(9) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 173(1)—Appeal Against Award—Insurance company appealed against the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking reduction of the award. B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 163-A—No-Fault Liability and Third-Party Claim—A person driving a borrowed vehicle is not considered a third party in relation to that vehicle and therefore cannot claim compensation under Section 163-A from the owner or insurer of the borrowed vehicle. C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 163-A—Personal Accident Cover for Owner-Driver—An owner-cum-driver driving a borrowed vehicle is entitled only to compensation under the Personal Accident Cover for Owner-Driver, provided the insurance premium for such cover was paid, as per the terms of the insurance ...

Disposed of
(10) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

A. Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005—Section 2(1)—Confirmation in Service—Appellant appointed as Assistant Professor subject to condition of acquiring NET/SLET/Ph.D—within two years with one-time relaxation—Appellant obtained Ph.D. after about thirteen years and claimed confirmation from expiry of initial probation period along with consequential benefits including increments—Held, acquisition of the prescribed qualification was a condition precedent for confirmation and grant of increments and not a mere procedural formality after completion of probation—Since the appointment itself was conditional upon obtaining the qualification within the stipulated period or permissible extension, the claim for retrospective confirmation and benefits was untenable. ...

slcdailylaw

Tomar Publication

561, Sec-2, Jagriti Vihar, Meerut-250004

0121 3561932, +91 9458 5523 61

tomarpublication999@gmail.com

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

© SLC Daily law all right reserved.

Cookies Required

Please enable cookies in your browser settings to continue.