Vijendra Singh Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46884
1 WP-18568-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
th
ON THE 24 OF JUNE, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 18568 of 2026
VIJENDRA SINGH RAWAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narendra Chouhan - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Kanak Gaharwar - Government Advocate for respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Khalid Noor Fakhruddin - Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
ORDER
Per: Justice B. P. Sharma :
The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the legality and
propriety of the charge-sheet/show cause notice dated 19.12.2025, issued by
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of its disciplinary jurisdiction
under Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1966").
The petitioner seeks quashment of the departmental proceedings initiated
pursuant thereto on the ground that they have been commenced during the
pendency of a criminal prosecution arising out of the same set of facts.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 7/7/2026
11:28:34 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46884
2 WP-18568-2026
2. The petitioner is a member of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial

Service. At the relevant point of time, he was posted as V Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Indore. Certain allegations came to the notice of the High
Court in relation to Criminal Trial No.1621/2019 titled State Vs. Santosh
Verma. The allegations, in substance, were that a judgment dated 06.10.2020
showing acquittal of accused Santosh Verma was prepared and brought into
existence despite the fact that the criminal case was still pending and had not
been legally disposed of. It was further alleged that the said act was
committed in furtherance of a conspiracy to confer undue advantage upon
the accused. Santosh Verma who was supposed to receive the IAS award, but
it was not possible for him to get it due to pendency of criminal case. Such
conduct amounted to grave misconduct, abuse of judicial office and failure
to maintain the integrity expected from a judicial officer.
3. The matter was subjected to vigilance scrutiny by the High Court
on its administrative side. After collection and examination of the relevant
material, the disciplinary authority considered it appropriate to initiate
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner was placed
under suspension and thereafter a charge-sheet dated 19.12.2025 came to be
issued under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966. The charge-sheet contains
specific articles of charge accompanied by statement of imputations, list of
documents and list of witnesses has been issued against him. The
disciplinary authority also appointed an Inquiry Officer and Presenting
Officer for conducting the enquiry in accordance with law. Being aggrieved
the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 7/7/2026
11:28:34 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46884
3 WP-18568-2026
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the

impugned charge-sheet deserves to be quashed primarily on account of gross
and unexplained delay. It is contended that the alleged incident pertains to
the year 2020 whereas the charge-sheet has been issued only in December,
2025. According to the petitioner, initiation of disciplinary proceedings after
such a long period is unreasonable and violative of principles of fairness. It
is submitted that because of the passage of time, the petitioner has suffered
serious prejudice in collecting relevant evidence and defending himself
effectively in the inquiry.
5. It is further argued that the criminal prosecution and the
departmental proceedings are founded upon the same transaction and
substantially identical allegations. Learned counsel submitted that the
witnesses, documents and evidence in both proceedings are common and,
therefore, continuation of departmental proceedings would seriously
prejudice the defence of the petitioner in the criminal trial. It is submitted
that compelling the petitioner to disclose his defence in the departmental
inquiry would adversely affect his rights in the pending criminal case. In
support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel has placed reliance
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony
Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another, (1999) 3 SCC 679 and argued that
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where departmental proceedings
and criminal proceedings are based upon identical and similar facts and the
criminal charge is of grave nature involving complicated questions of law
and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 7/7/2026
11:28:34 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46884
4 WP-18568-2026
conclusion of the criminal case. Learned counsel submits that the allegations

levelled against the petitioner are undoubtedly serious and therefore the
principles laid down in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) squarely govern the
present case.
6. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment rendered
by the Division Bench of this Court in Yashvant Singh Dhakad Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others, Writ Petition No.47632 of 2025. It is contended
that the power of judicial review can be exercised where disciplinary
proceedings are initiated in an arbitrary manner or where the charge-sheet
suffers from legal infirmities. It is therefore submitted that the impugned
charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed.
7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
State and learned Counsel appearing for the High Court opposed the writ
petition and supported the action of the disciplinary authority. It is submitted
that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are of an exceptionally
grave nature involving the integrity of a judicial officer. The allegations
pertain to preparation of a forged judgment and conferment of unlawful
benefit upon an accused person. Such allegations, according to the
respondents, strike at the very root of public confidence in the administration
of justice and therefore require a thorough disciplinary inquiry.
8. Learned counsel submitted that the writ petition has been filed
against a mere charge-sheet. It is argued that at the stage of issuance of
charge-sheet, judicial review is extremely limited and ordinarily Courts do
not interfere unless the charge-sheet has been issued without jurisdiction or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 7/7/2026
11:28:34 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46884
5 WP-18568-2026
is wholly without authority of law. The petitioner has adequate opportunity

to place his defence before the Inquiry Officer and establish his innocence
during the disciplinary proceedings.
9. It is further contended that there is no legal prohibition against
simultaneous continuation of criminal proceedings and departmental inquiry.
The purpose, scope and standard of proof applicable to the two proceedings
are entirely different. While criminal proceedings determine criminal
culpability beyond reasonable doubt, disciplinary proceedings are intended
to ascertain whether the conduct of the delinquent officer is consistent with
service discipline and institutional integrity. In support of the aforesaid
submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon Mohinder Singh Kanwar
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Writ Petition No.12170 of
2021) wherein this Court reiterated the settled principle that ordinarily a
charge-sheet should not be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction and
that allegations must be tested during the inquiry itself. Reliance has also
been placed upon Shailendra Pasari Vs. The Coal India Ltd. through its
Chairman-cum-Managing Director Coal Bhawan and Others (Writ Petition
No.21950 of 2019) wherein this Court declined interference at an
intermediate stage of disciplinary proceedings and reiterated the principle
that Courts should not stifle disciplinary action at its inception.
10. Learned counsel further relied upon Dinesh Awasthi Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Writ Petition No.4145 of 2015) and
submitted that delay by itself does not render disciplinary proceedings
invalid. Unless actual prejudice is established by the delinquent employee,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 7/7/2026
11:28:34 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46884
6 WP-18568-2026
disciplinary proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that they

were initiated after a lapse of time. It is therefore submitted that the writ
petition is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
carefully perused the record.
12. The challenge raised in the present writ petition is directed
against a charge-sheet issued under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966.
Interference by a writ Court at such a preliminary stage is permissible only in
exceptional cases where the authority lacks jurisdiction or where the action is
patently arbitrary and contrary to law. The first contention advanced by the
petitioner is founded upon the alleged delay in issuance of the charge-sheet.
We are unable to accept the submission. The allegations levelled against the
petitioner concern preparation of an acquittal judgment of an accused person
despite the criminal case not having been lawfully concluded. Such
allegations are of the gravest nature and concern the integrity of the judicial
institution itself. Matters involving judicial officers necessarily require
detailed vigilance scrutiny and careful examination before a decision
regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings is taken. The petitioner has
not demonstrated any specific prejudice resulting from the alleged delay. A
mere assertion that the defence has been prejudiced cannot be accepted in the
absence of any material particulars. In this regard, the decision of this Court
in Dinesh Awasthi (supra) supports the contention of the respondents. The
said judgment recognizes that delay is not by itself sufficient to invalidate
disciplinary proceedings and that the Court must examine whether actual
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 7/7/2026
11:28:34 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46884
7 WP-18568-2026
prejudice has been established. In the present case, no such prejudice has

been demonstrated.
13. The second and principal contention of the petitioner is based
upon the pendency of criminal proceedings. We have carefully considered
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony
(supra), which has been strongly relied upon by the petitioner. The ratio of
the said judgment does not support the broad proposition canvassed by the
petitioner. The Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that there is no bar to
simultaneous continuation of criminal proceedings and departmental
proceedings. The Court merely observed that where both proceedings are
based upon identical facts and the criminal charge is of grave nature
involving complicated questions of law and fact, it may be desirable in
certain situations to stay the departmental proceedings. The judgment itself
further clarifies that departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed and
that administrative authorities are entitled to proceed with disciplinary action
where circumstances so warrant. Therefore, Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra)
does not lay down an inflexible rule mandating stay of departmental
proceedings in every case where a criminal prosecution is pending. The
aforesaid judgment is distinguishable on facts and does not applicable in the
case of the petitioner.
14. In the present matter, the allegations concern a member of the
judicial service. Public confidence in the judiciary constitutes one of the
foundational pillars of the constitutional system. The disciplinary authority is
under an obligation to ascertain whether the conduct of a judicial officer
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 7/7/2026
11:28:34 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46884
8 WP-18568-2026
conforms to the standards of integrity and propriety expected from the office

held by him. Such inquiry cannot be indefinitely postponed awaiting
conclusion of criminal proceedings, the duration of which remains uncertain.
The reliance placed upon Yashvant Singh Dhakad (supra) is equally
misconceived. The said judgment arose in an entirely different factual
context and cannot be read as laying down any proposition requiring
quashment of a charge-sheet involving serious allegations against a judicial
officer. The facts of the present case disclose specific articles of charge
supported by statement of imputations, witnesses and documentary material.
The charges cannot be described as vague or indefinite. Whether they are
ultimately proved or disproved is a matter to be adjudicated during the
disciplinary inquiry.
15. On the other hand, the principles laid down in Mohinder Singh
Kanwar (supra) and Shailendra Pasari (supra) fully support the stand of the
respondents. The consistent view of this Court is that ordinarily a charge-
sheet should not be interfered with and that disciplinary proceedings should
be allowed to run their course. The correctness of allegations, sufficiency of
evidence and defence of the delinquent employee are matters falling within
the domain of the disciplinary authority and not for adjudication in
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution at the threshold stage.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby
dismissed. The disciplinary authority shall be at liberty to proceed with the
departmental inquiry in accordance with law. Any observations made herein
are confined to adjudication of the present writ petition and shall not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 7/7/2026
11:28:34 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46884
9 WP-18568-2026
influence the disciplinary authority while deciding the departmental

proceedings on merits.
(ANAND PATHAK)
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
JUDGE
SM

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 7/7/2026
11:28:34 AM