Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge, Justice Sheel Nagu<\/p>"},"content":{"rendered":"
Justice Sheel Nagu is a distinguished jurist whose judicial career reflects decades of dedicated service to the legal profession and the administration of justice.<\/p>\n
Echoes of Justice: The Formative Years of Justice Sheel Nagu<\/p>\n
Justice Sheel Nagu was born on 1 January 1965. He obtained a Bachelor of Commerce degree and later pursued a Bachelor of Laws degree before enrolling as an advocate on 5 October 1987.1<\/sup><\/a> As an advocate, he developed a diverse practice spanning civil, constitutional, service, labour and criminal matters, primarily practicing before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur.2<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n From Advocacy to Judgeship<\/p>\n Justice Sheel Nagu was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 27 May 2011 and became a Permanent Judge on 23 May 2013. On 25 May 2024, he was appointed as the Acting Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.<\/p>\n He was subsequently sworn in as the 66th<\/span>Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 9 July 2024.<\/p>\n • Did You Know?<\/span> Justice Sheel Nagu during his 12 years tenure as a Judge at Madhya Pradesh High Court, he authored more than 499 reported judgments.3<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n • In recognition of his distinguished judicial service and vast experience on the Bench,, Justice Nagu was recommended for elevation to the Supreme Court in May 2026. He took oath as a Supreme Court judge on 2 June 2026, and is expected to serve until 31 December 2029.4<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n •Did You Know?<\/span> Justice Nagu was also a member of the three-judge committee constituted by the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna to inquire into allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma. 5<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Notable Judgments of Justice Sheel Nagu<\/p>\n Throughout his judicial career, Justice Nagu had delivered numerous noteworthy judgments addressing important questions of law and public significance. His approach to adjudication has consistently reflected a balanced interpretation of legal principles, coupled with a keen sensitivity to constitutional mandates and the interests of justice.<\/p>\n Punjab and Haryana High Court<\/p>\n While considering a petition seeking direction restraining the respondents from taking coercive steps against the petitioner-Company pursuant to the raid conducted, on 30 March 2026, by a team of officers of Respondent 2-Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB), the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*, CJ.<\/span>, and Sanjiv Berry, J., in Trident Ltd.<\/span> v. State of Punjab<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine P&H 8900<\/a><\/span>, held that the timing of the raid conducted by PPCB, which was in close proximity to the switching of political allegiance<\/a> of the Chairman Emeritus of the petitioner-Company from Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), stemmed from political vendetta and appeared reasonably palpable.<\/p>\n While considering a public interest litigation seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus for categorisation of the victims of the Pahalgam terrorist attack as \u201cMartyrs\/Shaheed\u201d<\/a>, establishment of a memorial, and renaming the place of occurrence as \u201cShaheed Hindu Valley Tourist Place\u201d, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*, CJ.<\/span>, and Sumeet Goel, J., in Yush Ahuja<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2441<\/a>, <\/span>held that the power to declare a place as a memorial, rename a place, or declare deceased persons as Martyrs\/Shaheed lies exclusively within the domain of executive policy and the Court cannot enter into the field of policy making, and accordingly disposed of the petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the State to be decided in accordance with law within 30 days.<\/p>\n While considering a bunch of four appeals arising from a common judgment of conviction passed by the Court of Special Judge (CBI), Haryana by which Baba Gurmeet Singh<\/a> and other appellants was convicted in journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati\u2019s murder case in Baba Gurmeet Singh<\/span> v. CBI<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine P&H 3217<\/a><\/span>, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu, CJ., and Vikram Aggarwal<\/span>*, J., reiterated that where two possibilities, one of commission of crime and the other of innocence, are reasonably possible, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Considering the lack of credibility of eyewitnesses and investigative lapses, the Court acquitted Baba Gurmeet Singh.<\/p>\n In Harpreet Singh Dua<\/span> v. Panjab University<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 14228<\/a><\/span>, a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking direction for Punjab University-respondent to strictly adhere to the Senate election schedule, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*, CJ.<\/span>, and Sanjiv Berry, J., held that academic activities could not be compromised at the altar of electoral or political aspirations.<\/a> Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition and directed Punjab University Senate elections to be conducted expeditiously.<\/p>\n \u201cThis Court reminds the students that their admission to the University by their parents is fundamentally for the purpose of receiving education and thus the prime focus of all students should remain acquisition of knowledge.\u201d<\/p>\n In Amritpal Singh<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>6<\/sup><\/a>, <\/span>, a petition was filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for setting aside the order of preventive detention dated 17 April 2025 passed by District Magistrate, Amritsar (Respondent 3) under Section 3(3)<\/a>, National Security Act, 1980<\/a>. The petitioner contended that such power could only be conferred upon the district magistrate only during times when direct\/indirect\/event centric events from which could danger to public order can be apprehended. The D Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*, CJ.<\/span>, and Archana Puri, J., held that, the Section 3(3) nowhere suggests the power of the State Governments is only restricted to events\/indirect\/district-centric and therefore dismissed the petition.<\/p>\n While considering a set of writ petitions seeking directions to the State of Punjab for removal of police force deployed at the Bhakra Nangal Dam and Lohand Control Room Water Regulation Offices and for enforcement of release of 8500 cusecs of water to Haryana in terms of the decision taken by the Bhakra Beas Management Board, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu, CJ., and Sumeet Goel, J., in Bhakra Beas Management Board<\/span> v. State of Punjab<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2287<\/span><\/a>, held that in view of the statutory framework under Article 262<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> read with the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966<\/a> and the BBMB Rules, 1974, any inter-State dispute relating to water allocation is required to be agitated through representation before the Central Government and not by unilateral executive action, and further restrained the State of Punjab and its functionaries from interfering in the day-to-day functioning, operation and regulation of the Control Rooms while directing it to abide by the BBMB decision and permitting recourse to the statutory mechanism in case of dissent.<\/p>\n In Shiva Sharma<\/span> v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 7883<\/a><\/span>, a petition filed by a District and Sessions Judge, Haryana (\u2018petitioner\u2019) challenging the order of his compulsory retirement of 58-year-old District Judge<\/a>, in public interest passed by the Governor of the State of Haryana on the recommendations of this High Court, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*, CJ.<\/span>, and Sanjiv Berry J., criticised the Administrative Judge\u2019s decision and opined that the order was vitiated by illegality, impropriety and malice. Accordingly, the Court overturned the compulsory retirement and ordered that the petitioner be entitled to all consequential benefits.<\/p>\n In AU Small Finance Bank<\/span> v. State of Punjab<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 62<\/a>7<\/span>, a petition was filed by the bank(\u2018petitioner\u2019) which was aggrieved by non-execution of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14<\/a> of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002<\/a> (\u2018SARFAESI Act\u2019). A Division Judge Bench of Sheel Nagu CJ.,*<\/span> and Ramesh Kumari J. held that just because time frame was not prescribed for execution of an order<\/a> passed under Section 14<\/a> of the SARFAESI Act<\/a> does not mean that the District Magistrate and the Revenue Authority concerned would sit over the file, thereby frustrating the object of SARFAESI Act<\/a>, which was inter alia to expeditiously recover the mounting bad debts in shape of Non-Performing Asset which were a huge burden on the public exchequer.<\/p>\n A petition, Rushil Jindal<\/span> v. Punjab and Haryana High Court<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 9113<\/a><\/span>, was filed by the petitioner challenging Clause 8.4 of the notifications issued for the States of Haryana and Punjab for direct recruitment of Additional District and Sessions Judge<\/a> imposing \u2018minimum marks qualification\u2019 of 50 per cent marks in aggregate for being in contravention of Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007<\/a> (\u2018Haryana Rules\u2019) and Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007<\/a> (\u2018Punjab Rules\u2019). The Division Bench of Sheel Nagu, CJ., and Sanjiv Berry<\/span>*, J., held that the said notifications were not at all arbitrary in nature but were in consonance with the respective Service Rules to choose the best available talent for performance of the duties as a Member of Superior Judicial Service. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.<\/p>\n Also Read: Punjab and Haryana HC disposes plea of 2016 Civil Judge exam candidate after Recruitment Committee calls him for viva-voce following dispute over 3 marks<\/a><\/p>\n In Naman Sharma<\/span> v. State of Haryana<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 520<\/a>3<\/span>, a petition filed by an aspirant for admission to five years B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) course in law, seeking directions for conduct a fresh entrance test and eventually praying for withdrawal of the petition, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*, CJ.<\/span>, and Yashvir Singh Rathor, J., dismissed the petition by allowing the prayer of withdrawal with a cost of Rs 5,000 calling the initial prayer untenable<\/a> in law.<\/p>\n In Pushpanjali Trust<\/span> v. State of Punjab<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 4804<\/a>,<\/span> a public interest litigation filed for implementation of Mental Health Care Act, 2017<\/a> (2017 Act), the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu CJ., and Sanjiv Berry J., held that every Magistrate, police officer and person in-charge of such custodial institution has a duty to inform the person suffering from mental ailment that he\/she is entitled to free legal services<\/a> under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987<\/a> (1987 Act).<\/p>\n In Paramjit Singh<\/span> v. State of Punjab<\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 4801<\/a>, <\/span>a petition challenging the charge-sheet issued for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, stating that it was violating Proviso of Rule 2.2(b), Note 2, of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, a Single Judge Bench of Sheel Nagu,* CJ.<\/span>, allowed the appeal and imposed cost of Rs 1,00<\/a>,000 on the respondent stating that the present litigation dehors the very basic object of litigation policy of the State of Punjab.<\/p>\n In Court on its own motion<\/span> v. State of Hayana<\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 4308<\/a>, <\/span>a suo motu public interest litigation (\u2018PIL\u2019) initiated by the Court regarding felling of trees by DLF Ltd. for its project over 40 acres of land in Phase 5, Gurugram, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*, CJ.<\/span>, and Sanjiv Berry, J., disposed of the PIL, holding that since none of the khasras, regarding which DLF was permitted to cut trees, fell within the Aravalli Hills area<\/a>, it was not appropriate to proceed in the matter.<\/p>\n In Ankur Lal<\/span> v. Punjab and Haryana High Court<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2578<\/a><\/span>, a writ petition filed by a Civil Judge against his dismissal from service<\/a> upon completion of his probation, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu<\/span>*, CJ., and Sumeet Goel, J., rejected the petition, holding that the concept of deemed would not apply to the present case since it would create an anomalous situation where the probationer despite being unfit for confirmation, would be deemed confirmed, bringing into the service a Judge of doubtful integrity whose service record was tainted with adverse remarks.<\/p>\n In Sunil<\/span> v. State of Haryana<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 3400<\/a><\/span>, a writ petition filed seeking quashing of two notifications dated 20-11-2019 amending the Haryana (Prevention and Control of Water Pollution) Rules, 1978 (\u2018Water Rules\u2019) and the Haryana Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1983 (\u2018Air Rules\u2019), the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*, CJ.<\/span>, and H.S. Grewal, J., rejected the writ petition, holding that the impugned notifications did not violate the law<\/a> that the composition of Appellate Authorities in environmental matters ought to be manned by technical personnel in addition to judicial members.<\/p>\n In Heena Shehrawat<\/span> v. State of Haryana<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 644,<\/span><\/a> <\/span>a writ petition filed by a judicial service aspirant challenging non-award of 2.5 marks for a correct answer in the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) examination<\/a> conducted by the Haryana Public Service Commission, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*, CJ<\/span>., and Sumeet Goel, J., allowed the petition, holding that since the petitioner\u2019s answer was undisputedly correct and similarly situated candidates were awarded marks for the same response, the denial of marks was arbitrary, and consequently directed the State to award 2.5 marks and to appoint the petitioner as Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), subject to her eligibility and absence of any legal disability.<\/p>\n In Gurdial Singh Kachure<\/span> v. State of Punjab<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2768<\/a>, <\/span>an anticipatory bail application filed in an FIR registered under Section 303(2)<\/a>, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a> and Section 21<\/a>, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957<\/a> alleging illegal mining from the river Satluj, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*<\/span>, CJ., and Sumeet Goel, J., rejected the application, holding that illegal mining in rivers causes serious environmental degradation<\/a> and cannot be treated lightly despite the quantum of punishment prescribed under law, and further finding that disputed factual issues regarding the presence of the JCB machine and the authenticity of the alleged Gram Panchayat resolution fall within the domain of trial, and consequently declined to grant anticipatory bail.<\/p>\n In Pradeep Singh Advocate<\/span> v. State of Haryana<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine P&H 638<\/a><\/span>, a petition was filed by Pradeep Singh Advocate (\u2018petitioner\u2019) seeking a writ of quo warranto to quash the appointment of the Advocate General of Haryana (\u2018respondent No. 2\u2019), contending that past allegations of professional misconduct and impropriety disqualified him under the standards required by Article 217. A Division Judge Bench of Sheel Nagu CJ<\/span>.,* and Ramesh Kumari J. held that under Article 165 read with Article 217, the qualifications for the post of Advocate General are strictly limited to Indian citizenship and 10 years of High Court practice. Since the respondent undisputedly met these baseline criteria, the Court clarified that subjective allegations of past misdemeanor or moral propriety cannot be examined in quo warranto proceedings, and therefore dismissed the petition.<\/p>\n In Abhilaksh Sachdev<\/span> v. State of Haryana<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 13874<\/a><\/span>, a petition filed essentially complaining of noise pollution caused by Respondent 7, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu, CJ and Anil Kshetarpal, J., stated that since noise pollution was part of the air pollution and was punishable under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981<\/a> (\u2018Air Act\u2019), the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the police station concerned and lodge an FIR in case of any violation of the guidelines laid down in Reet Mohinder Singh<\/span> v. State of Punjab<\/span>, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 7001<\/a> (\u2018Reet case\u2019).<\/p>\n The Court stated that this direction did not absolve the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, since they have been held to be personally liable, as per the directions passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 22-07-2019 in Reet case (supra). The Court directed the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police to be vigilant and in case any violation was pointed out by any citizen of the States of Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh, appropriate steps should be taken in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.<\/p>\n Also Read: Noise Pollution | P&H High Court seeks status reports from State on use of loudspeakers at intolerable volume in Gurudwaras<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/p>\n In Aniruddh Singh<\/span> v. ICICI Bank Ltd<\/span>., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 205<\/a>,<\/span> a<\/a> petition challenging the order of the DRT which dismissed the petitioners\u2019 application under Section 17(1)<\/a>, SARFAESI Act<\/a> as time-barred, refusing to condone a 46-day delay, the Divison Bench of Sheel Nagu*<\/span> and Vivek Jain, JJ., held that, since the SARFAESI Act does not expressly bar the application of the Limitation Act, the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 apply to proceedings before the DRT. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the DRT to consider the condonation of delay.<\/p>\n In Kaushal Jha<\/span> v. State of M.P<\/span>., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 2726<\/a><\/span>, a habeas corpus petition filed on the allegation that the petitioner\u2019s adult wife corpus was being unlawfully restrained by her parents<\/a> due to their opposition to the marriage, the Single Judge Bench of Sheel Nagu J.*<\/span> held that since the corpus unequivocally stated before the Court that she had married the petitioner out of her own free will without any coercion, she was legally entitled to reside at any place and with any person of her choice, and any interference with such autonomy amounted to unlawful restraint, consequently allowing the petition and directing the parents to refrain from restricting her movements or choice of company.<\/p>\n In State of M.P.<\/span> v. Rajendra Kumar Jain<\/span>, 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1298<\/a><\/span>, a review petition filed by the State challenging orders granting regular pay increments to classified permanent daily-wager employees, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*<\/span> and S.A. Dharmadhikari, JJ., allowed the petitions, holding that employees made permanent by way of classification cannot be equated with employees substantively appointed against sanctioned posts through due recruitment process, and while they may be entitled to the benefit of \u201cEqual Pay for Equal Work\u201d, they are only entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale without increments, and consequently set aside the impugned orders as being contrary to settled law to maintain judicial discipline.<\/p>\n In Ripudaman Singh Yadav<\/span> v. State of M.P<\/span>., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 1658<\/a>, <\/span>a writ appeal filed by a government employee challenging a mid-session transfer order<\/a> on the ground that it disrupted his children\u2019s education and separated him from his government-employed spouse, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu and Vivek Agarwal J., held that although transfer is an incident of service, frequent mid-term transfers without compelling administrative necessity are inconsistent with the obligations of a welfare State under Article 38(1)<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, and the State must consider the socio-educational impact on employees and make reasonable efforts to accommodate working spouses at the same station, and accordingly set aside the impugned transfer order for failure to balance administrative exigencies with individual hardship.<\/p>\n In Sudeepto Saha<\/span> v. Moumita<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine MP 4671<\/a><\/span>, an appeal filed by the husband challenging the dismissal of his divorce petition by the Family Court on the ground of non-consummation of marriage, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu and Vinay Saraf, JJ., held that the respondent-wife\u2019s persistent and unilateral denial of physical intimacy from the inception of marriage, resulting in a completely unconsummated marital relationship without any justifiable cause or medical incapacity, amounted to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia)<\/a>, Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>, and consequently set aside the impugned order granting the husband a decree of divorce.<\/p>\n In Ramkhiladi Sharma<\/span> v. National Health Mission<\/span>, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 2975<\/a>,<\/span> a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of a subsequent relaxation in essential qualifications for the post of Community Health Officer under an ongoing recruitment process, the Division Bench of Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava and Sheel Nagu, JJ., held that once a recruitment process commences upon issuance of an advertisement<\/a>, no alteration in essential qualifications or disqualifications can be introduced during the subsistence of the recruitment, as permitting such retrospective application of relaxed criteria would prejudice candidates who refrained from applying under the original eligibility conditions, and accordingly dismissed the petition holding that the subsequent relaxation could not be applied to the ongoing selection process.<\/p>\n In Raghuvanshi<\/span> v. State of M.P<\/span>., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 210<\/a>, <\/span>a writ petition filed by a \u201cpermanent employee\u201d seeking grant of regular graded pay scale with annual increments under the Standing Orders Act<\/a>, the Single Judge Bench of Sheel Nagu*<\/span>, J., held that a clear distinction exists between a permanent employee and a regularly appointed\/regularized employee, and that while a permanent employee is entitled only to the minimum of the applicable graded pay scale, the benefit of annual increments accrues only upon formal regularization in service, and accordingly disposed of the petition directing payment of minimum of the graded pay scale while denying the claim for increments.<\/p>\n In Sulabh Sharma<\/span> v. State of M.P.<\/span>, 2021 SCC OnLine MP 572<\/a>, <\/span>a writ petition filed challenging a preventive detention order passed under Section 3(3)<\/a>, National Security Act, 1980<\/a> on allegations of food adulteration, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu and Anand Pathak, JJ., allowed the petition and held that since preventive detention constitutes an exception to the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, the procedural safeguards and statutory timelines governing such detention must be strictly and literally complied with, and in the absence of any recorded exceptional justification for delay in forwarding the detention order and supporting material to the Central Government beyond the prescribed limit, the detention stood vitiated, and accordingly the Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned detention order.<\/p>\n In Dileep Pardi<\/span> v. State of M.P.<\/span>, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 425<\/a>,<\/span> a fourth application for bail filed under Section 439<\/a> CrPC<\/a> by an accused charged under Sections 307<\/a>, 323<\/a>, 294<\/a>, 147<\/a>, 148<\/a>, 149<\/a>, 325<\/a>, 427<\/a> IPC<\/a> and Sections 25<\/a> and 27<\/a> of the Arms Act<\/a> in connection with an incident involving injuries to police personnel, the Single Judge Bench of Sheel Nagu<\/span>, J., held that although the allegations were serious, the petitioner had remained in custody for over one year and four months with minimal progress in trial and a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail, Emphasizing on that, The bench held that:<\/p>\n \u201cProlonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty.\u201d<\/p>\n And continued incarceration would violate the right to speedy trial<\/a> under Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, pre-conviction detention cannot assume a punitive character and accordingly allowed the petition and directed release of the petitioner on bail.<\/p>\n In Vinod Kumar<\/span> v. Union of India (Ministry of Defence)<\/span>, 2022 SCC OnLine MP 2820<\/a>, <\/span>a petition filed under Article 227 challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal upholding cancellation of the petitioner\u2019s candidature for the post of Chemical Processor Worker in an Ordnance Factory despite his acquittal in offences under Sections 376<\/a>, 384<\/a>, and 509<\/a> IPC<\/a> read with Section 4<\/a> of the POCSO Act<\/a>, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu* and Sunita Yadav, JJ., held that unless the acquittal in a criminal case is honourable and clean<\/a>, the employer retains sufficient discretion to assess the suitability of a candidate for public employment, particularly in sensitive posts under the Ministry of Defence involving national security concerns, and accordingly dismissed the petition while upholding the cancellation of candidature.<\/p>\n In Deenbandhu Saket<\/span> v. State of M.P.<\/span>, 2021 SCC OnLine MP 2603<\/a>, <\/span>a writ petition filed by a delinquent employee challenging an inquiry officer\u2019s order declining to facilitate the release of a proposed defence assistant<\/a> and instead directing the employee to make independent arrangements, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, JJ., held that the right to engage a defence assistant under Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules is a statutory safeguard rooted in the principles of natural justice, and therefore the inquiry officer is obligated to formally request the controlling authority in writing to relieve the proposed defence assistant rather than shifting the burden entirely upon the employee, and accordingly quashed the impugned order while cautioning against misuse of the procedural safeguard for delaying the inquiry.<\/p>\n *Judge who penned the judgment<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n 1.<\/a> https:\/\/www.sci.gov.in\/judge\/justice-sheel-nagu\/<\/a><\/p>\n 2.<\/a> Justice Sheel Nagu appointed as 66th Chief Justice of P&H HC | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n 3.<\/a> Justice Sheel Nagu appointed as 66th Chief Justice of P&H HC | SCC Times<\/a>.<\/p>\n 4.<\/a> https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/03\/cji-surya-kant-administers-oath-to-five-new-supreme-court-judges\/<\/a><\/p>\n 5.<\/a> CJI constitutes 3-member committee to inquire cash-in-house row; Justice Yashwant Varma signals conspiracy to frame and malign him | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n
\n