Hariom Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33023
1 WP-18954-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 28 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 18954 of 2021
CNR No.: MPHC030224372021
HARIOM SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G.K. Agarwal - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking following relief(s):-
"7.1 That, the petitioner therefore most humbly prays
that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow
this petition there by issuing a writ of mandamus to
quash the impugned orders as contained in Annexre P/1
and P/2 with further directions to the respondents to
restore the scale of pay of petitioner with all
consequential benefits including revised PPO and
payment of arrears with interest of 12% per annum.
7.4 That, any other relief doing justice including cost
also may be ordered.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
was initially appointed to the post of Registration Clerk on 09.12.1982 and
was thereafter promoted to the post of Sub-Registrar on 16.05.2008. The
petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on
30.04.2020 while working on the post of Sub-Registrar. It is submitted that at
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:37:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33023
2 WP-18954-2021
the relevant point of time in the year 2015, the petitioner was posted as Sub-
Registrar at Gwalior. He registered a sale deed on 05.08.2015 in respect of
Plot No. 19-B situated at Kailash Nagar, Mehalgaon, Gwalior. Thereafter,
upon receipt of an oral complaint, the petitioner conducted a spot inspection
of the aforesaid property and, on 03.12.2015, submitted a report to the
Collector of Stamp, stating that the construction existing on the plot was in
excess of the area mentioned in the registered sale deed. On the basis of the
said report, proceedings under Section 47-A(3) of the Stamp Act were
initiated against the purchaser. It is further submitted that on 05.12.2015, the
petitioner was directed to resubmit the assessment report and clarify whether
the property was residential or commercial in nature. Accordingly, on
13.01.2016, the petitioner appeared in person before the Collector of Stamp
and stated that the house constructed on the said plot was residential and that
no commercial activities were being carried out therein. Thereafter, on
29.01.2016, the Senior District Registrar, along with his Reader, conducted a
spot inspection and found that a commercial office was being operated on the
ground floor of the property. A report in this regard was forwarded to the
Inspector General of Registration vide letter dated 30.01.2016.
3. Meanwhile, on 20.02.2016, the Collector of Stamp passed a final
order in the proceedings initiated under Section 47-A(3) of the Stamp Act
and directed the purchaser to deposit a sum of Rs.7,30,354/- towards
deficient stamp fee. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Board of
Revenue. The Board of Revenue ultimately set aside the orders passed by the
Collector of Stamp and the Commissioner and remanded the matter to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:37:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33023
3 WP-18954-2021
competent authority for reassessment of the value of the property on the
basis of the spot inspection report submitted by the petitioner to the Collector
of Stamps. The relevant order of the Board of Revenue has been placed on
record as Annexure P-5. It is further submitted that on 26.04.2016, a charge-
sheet/show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted a
reply denying the allegations levelled against him. Thereafter, an Inquiry
Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed by the disciplinary
authority. Upon conducting the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer
submitted the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority, holding Charge No.
1 to be partly proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the disciplinary authority, vide order dated 02.02.2017
(Annexure P-10), supplied a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner but
did not communicate any tentative reasons for disagreement with the
findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner thereafter submitted
a detailed explanation/reply dated 12.01.2017, raising various factual and
legal grounds, as contained in Annexure P-11. However, the disciplinary
authority failed to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in the said
explanation and, without recording or communicating any tentative reasons
for disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, proceeded to hold
Charge No. 1 to be fully proved, although the Inquiry Officer had held the
said charge to be only partly proved. It is contended that in the event of
disagreement with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, the
disciplinary authority was required to record and communicate its tentative
reasons for disagreement and afford an opportunity to the petitioner to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:37:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33023
4 WP-18954-2021
submit his representation thereagainst before arriving at a final conclusion.
Such a procedure was required to be followed in accordance with Rule 15(2)
of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1966. However, without following the aforesaid procedure, the
disciplinary authority imposed a major penalty upon the petitioner by
withholding three annual increments, thereby imposing a penalty of
reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay. It is further submitted that
the petitioner preferred an appeal against the punishment order before the
appellate authority and also placed on record a copy of the order passed by
the Board of Revenue. However, the appellate authority failed to consider the
order of the Board of Revenue and rejected the appeal vide order dated
13.01.2020.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the punishment
order dated 16.08.2017 is contrary to Rule 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. It is further
contended that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the material facts
and grounds raised by the petitioner in his explanation dated 12.01.2017 and
did not pass a reasoned and speaking order. The appellate order rejecting the
appeal is also a non-speaking and unreasoned order, as the appellate
authority has failed to consider the facts and grounds raised by the petitioner
in the appeal, as well as the decision rendered by the Board of
Revenue. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan,
(2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein the necessity of recording reasons in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:37:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33023
5 WP-18954-2021
administrative and quasi-judicial decisions affecting the rights of parties has
been emphasised. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that once the Board of Revenue had set aside the orders passed by the
authorities below and directed reassessment of the property on the basis of
the spot inspection report submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary
authority ought to have considered the effect of the said decision before
holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct. It is contended that the appellate
authority also failed to consider this material aspect while rejecting the
appeal. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner, as
reflected in the inquiry report, substantially pertains to alleged carelessness
in submitting the inspection report. Placing reliance upon the judgment in the
case of S.D. Bind Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 2015(1) MPLJ
574, the learned counsel contended that mere carelessness, in the absence of
the requisite elements constituting misconduct, cannot automatically be
treated as misconduct. It is submitted that there was no intention or mens rea
on the part of the petitioner to cause any loss to the State exchequer and that
the assessment/inspection report submitted by him had already been
considered by the Board of Revenue.
5 . Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent/State submitted that the Inquiry Officer had partly proved the
charge and that the disciplinary authority had ultimately held Charge No. 1 to
be fully proved. It is contended that there was no disagreement with the
inquiry report and, therefore, no question arose of issuing a notice containing
tentative reasons for disagreement. The learned Government Advocate
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:37:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33023
6 WP-18954-2021
supported the impugned orders and submitted that the punishment had been
imposed after conducting a departmental inquiry. Accordingly, he opposed
the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. No other ground has been raised by the learned counsel for the
parties.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner was
initially appointed to the post of Registration Clerk on 09.12.1982 and was
subsequently promoted to the post of Sub-Registrar on 16.05.2008. He
retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2020
while working as Sub-Registrar. In the year 2015, while posted as Sub-
Registrar at Gwalior, the petitioner registered a sale deed dated 05.08.2015 in
respect of Plot No. 19-B, situated at Kailash Nagar, Mehalgaon, Gwalior.
Upon receiving an oral complaint, the petitioner conducted a spot inspection
of the property and submitted a report dated 03.12.2015 to the Collector of
Stamps, stating that the construction existing on the plot exceeded the area
mentioned in the registered sale deed. On the basis of the said report,
proceedings under Section 47-A(3) of the Stamp Act were initiated against
the purchaser. It further appears that on 05.12.2015, the petitioner was
directed to resubmit the assessment report and clarify whether the property
was residential or commercial in nature. On 13.01.2016, the petitioner
appeared before the Collector of Stamps and stated that the house
constructed on the plot was residential and that no commercial activities
were being carried out therein. Subsequently, on 29.01.2016, the Senior
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:37:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33023
7 WP-18954-2021
District Registrar, along with his Reader, conducted a spot inspection and
found that a commercial office was operating on the ground floor of the
property. A report in this regard was forwarded to the Inspector General of
Registration vide letter dated 30.01.2016. It further appears that the Collector
of Stamps, vide order dated 20.02.2016, directed the purchaser to deposit
Rs.7,30,354/- towards deficient stamp duty. The said order was challenged
before the Board of Revenue, which set aside the orders passed by the
Collector of Stamps and the Commissioner and remanded the matter to the
competent authority for reassessment of the value of the property on the
basis of the spot inspection report submitted by the petitioner. The order
passed by the Board of Revenue is on record as Annexure P-5.
9. It also appears that a charge-sheet/show-cause notice was issued to
the petitioner on 26.04.2016, to which he submitted a reply denying the
allegations. Thereafter, an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were
appointed. Upon completion of the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer
held Charge No. 1 to be partly proved. The relevant part of the order dated
16.08.2017 (Annexure P-1) reads as under:-
(6.) ,
करण का पर ण कया गया। अपचार पर लगाये गये आरोप
,
जांच ितवेदन म ा िन कष अपचार के अ यावेदन एवं अिभलेखी
सा &य के आधार पर करण क ( )ववेचना करने पर पाया गया क
अपचार *ारा )बना कसी िनद ,श के स .प)/ का 0थल िनर ण कर
,
द 0तावेज मू 3य िनवारण हेतु कले 6टर आफ 0टा.प 9वािलयर को
संदिभ त कया गया। अपचार पर आरोप 0थल िनर ण उपरांत भी
स .प)/ क ( वा 0त)वक ;0थित संबंधी सह )ववरण अं कत न कर <ु टपूण
जानकार द गई। पुनः 0तुत 0थल िनर ण ितवेदन म स .प)/ को
आवासीय दशा या गया जब क व ?र@ ;जला पंजीयक *ारा कये गये 0थल
िनर ण म स .प)/ तल मं ;जल पर Aयावसाियक गित )विध संचािलत
पाई गई। अपचार *ारा आंिशक मा;णत पाए गए आरोप के बचाव म
,
तक दया गया क उप पंजीयक पंजीयन क ( काय वाह उपरांत कोई भी
काय वाह नह ं कर सकता अथा त उप पंजीयक पद काय िनवृत हो जाता
है। अपचार का तक उनक ( <ु ट के संदभ म दोहर मानिसकता को
दशा ता है. ऐसी ;0थित म जब क उनके *ारा द 0तावेज के पंजीयन के चार
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:37:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33023
8 WP-18954-2021
माह उपरांत 0वयं ह )बना कसी )वभागीय िनद ,श के स .प)/ का 0थल
िनर ण कर द 0तावेज मू 3य िनधा रण हेतु कले 6टर आफ 0टा.प को
संदिभ त कया गया हो। यह नह ं उनके *ारा <ु ट सुधार का अवसर
िमलने के बाद भी स .प)/ को आवासीय दशा या जाकर पुनः <ु टपूण
ितवेदन दया जाना न केवल उनक ( लापरवाह ब ;3क 0थल िनर ण
के बावजूद शासन के राज 0व के ित गंभीर उदासीनता को मा;णत
-
करने के साथ साथ उनक ( िन @ा को भी Fगत करता है। अतएव
अपचार पर लगाया गया आरोप जांच अिधकार *ारा आंिशक मा;णत
मा Gय करने संबंधी िन कष से सहमत न होकर आरोप को पूण मा;णत
मा Gय कया जाता है।
(7.)
उ H )ववेचना के प ?रे&य म अपचार पर मा;णत पाए गए आरोप
के िलए अपचार Iी ह ?रओम शमा उप पंजीयक के )वKL म. . िस )वल
( ) 1966 10(5)
सेवा वग Mकरण िनयं <ण एवं अपील िनयम के िनयम के
03
अंतग त अवनत करके वेतन के समयमान के Nम नीचे 0थाई Kप से
लाये जाने क ( शा ;0त अिधरो )पत क ( जाती है।
Vi d e order dated 02.02.2017 (Annexure P-10), the disciplinary
authority supplied a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner without
communicating any tentative reasons for disagreement with the findings of
the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated
12.01.2017, raising various factual and legal grounds in his defence.
Subsequently, the disciplinary authority held Charge No. 1 to be fully proved
and imposed a major penalty upon the petitioner by withholding three annual
increments, resulting in a reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay,
vide order dated 16.08.2017. It further appears that the petitioner preferred an
appeal against the punishment order and also placed on record the order
passed by the Board of Revenue. However, the appellate authority rejected
the appeal vide order dated 13.01.2020. The petitioner has challenged the
punishment order dated 16.08.2017 on the ground that the procedure
prescribed under Rule 15(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, was not followed, as no
tentative reasons for disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer
were communicated to him before Charge No. 1 was held to be fully proved.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:37:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33023
9 WP-18954-2021
It is further contended that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the
factual and legal grounds raised in the petitioner's explanation and did not
pass a reasoned and speaking order. The petitioner has also challenged the
appellate order dated 13.01.2020 on the ground that the appellate authority
failed to consider the grounds raised in the appeal, including the decision of
the Board of Revenue, and passed a non-speaking order. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Kranti Associates (supra) in support of the contention that
administrative and quasi-judicial authorities are required to record reasons
for their decisions. Reliance has also been placed upon S.D. Bind (supra) to
contend that mere carelessness, in the absence of the requisite elements
constituting misconduct, cannot automatically be treated as misconduct. It is
further contended that there was no intention or mens rea on the part of the
petitioner to cause any loss to the State exchequer and that the inspection
report submitted by him was subsequently considered by the Board of
Revenue. It is also apparent from the record that the Inquiry Officer had
specifically observed in the inquiry report that insofar as the alleged loss of
stamp duty was concerned, the matter was pending consideration before the
Board of Revenue and that the actual loss, if any, could be ascertained only
after the decision of the Board of Revenue. However, this material aspect
was not duly considered by the disciplinary authority while imposing the
punishment upon the petitioner.
10. The relevant portion of the letter dated 02.02.2017, placed on
record as Annexure P-10, regarding the supply of the departmental inquiry
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:37:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33023
10 WP-18954-2021
report to the petitioner, reads as under:
,
आपके )वKL चिलत )वभागीय जांच के संबंध म Iी ओ.पी. अ .ब
,
;जला पंजीयक एवं जांच अिधकार िशवपुर *ारा अपने प < Nमांक
10/ /2017 30.01.2017
;ज.ए. दनांक के साथ जांच ितवेदन भेजा गया
,
है ;जसक( ित संल 9न े)षत है। इस संबंध म आप य द कोई
, 15.02.2017
अ यावेदन 0तुत करना चाहते ह P तो दनांक तक 0तुत
, 20/02/17 11.00
कर तथा Aय)Hगत सुनवाई हेतु दनांक को ातः बजे
अधोह 0तार के सम काया लय म उप ;0थत होने का क Q कर । िनयत
/
ितिथ तक अ यावेदन ा न होने अनुप ;0थित क ( दशा म यह मानकर
,
क आप इस संबंध म कुछ नह ं कहना चाहते करण म आगामी
काय वाह क ( जावेगी ।
11. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Board of Revenue,
placed on record as Annexure P-5, reads as under:
उपरो H )ववेचना के आधार पर दोनो अधीन 0थ GयायालयS के आदेश
िनर 0त कए जाने ह P तथा करण कले 6टर ऑफ 0टा.प को इस िनद ,श
के साथ Uयावित त कया जाता है क थम 0थल िनर ण ितवेदन
5 ,
जो पृ @ पर संल 9न है म उ ;3ल;खत भूखंड एवं उस पर िनिम त े< पर
0टा.प शु 3क क ( गणना आवासीय मानकर क ( जाये और य द गणना
करने के फल 0वKप कोई रािश शेष िनकलती हो तो अपीलाथ M से जमा
कराई जाये। अपील अंशतः
0वीकार क ( जाती है।
12. Rule 15 of 1966 Rules is quoted below for ready reference and
convenience:
"15. Action on the inquiry report.-
(1) The disciplinary authority if it is not itself the inquiring
authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit
the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report
and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the
further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14 as far as
may be.
(2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings
of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its
reasons for such disagreement and record its own finding on such
charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.
(3) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all
or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the
penalties specified in [x x x] rule 10 should be imposed on the
Government servants, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained
in rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty [but in doing so it
shall record reasons in writing] [Added by No.11, dt. 16-12-83]:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:37:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33023
11 WP-18954-2021
Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the
Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the
disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice and such
advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order
imposing any penalty on the Government servant."
13. Rule 15 of 1965 Rules is quoted below for ready reference and
convenience:
"15. Action on the inquiry report.-
(1) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the inquiring
authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing remit the
case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and
the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further
inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14, as far as may be.
(2) The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be
forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the
Disciplinary Authority or where the Disciplinary Authority is not
the Inquiring Authority, a copy of the report of the Inquiring
Authority together with its own tentative reasons for
disagreement, if any, with the findings of Inquiring Authority on
any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be
required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or
submission to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days,
irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the
Government servant.
(3) (a) In every case where it is necessary to consult the
Commission, the Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to
be forwarded to the Commission for its advice:
(i) a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority
together with its own tentative reasons for
disagreement, if any, with the findings of Inquiring
Authority on any article of charge; and
(ii) comments of Disciplinary Authority on the
representation of the Government servant on the inquiry
report and disagreement note, if any and all the case
records of the inquiry proceedings.
(b) The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be
forwarded a copy of the advice of the Commission received under
clause (a) to the Government servant, who shall be required to
submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to
the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days, on the advice of the
Commission.
(4) The Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation
under sub-rule (2) and/or clause (b) of sub-rule (3), if any,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:37:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33023
12 WP-18954-2021
submitted by the Government servant and record its findings
before proceeding further in the matter as specified in sub-rules (5)
and (6).
(5) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on
all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the
penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 11 should be
imposed on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in Rule 16, make an order imposing such
penalty.
(6) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on
all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence
adduced during the inquiry is of the opinion that any of the
penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 should be
imposed on the Government servant, it shall make an order
imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the
Government servant any opportunity of making representation on
the penalty proposed to be imposed."
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Punjab National Bank and Others Vs.
Kunj Behari Mishra reported in AIR 2025 SC 2101 has already considered
the similar issue and held as under:
"17. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations
in Bimal Kumar Pandit case [AIR 1963 SC 1612: (1964) 2 SCR 1:
(1963) 1 LLJ [295] quoted earlier and would be applicable at the
first stage itself. The aforesaid passages clearly bring out the
necessity of the authority which is to finally record an adverse
finding to give a hearing to the delinquent officer. If the enquiry
officer had given an adverse finding, as per Karunakar case
[(1993) 4 SCC 727: 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184: (1993) 25 ATC 704]
the first stage required an opportunity to be given to the employee
to represent to the disciplinary authority, even when an earlier
opportunity had been granted to them by the enquiry officer. It
will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the
delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the
disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The
first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the disciplinary
authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural
justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide
against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the
enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report
has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a
representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action
which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in
the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent
officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such
conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the
delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:37:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33023
13 WP-18954-2021
otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental
proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the
disciplinary authority.
19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the
principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2).
As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees
with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it
records its own findings on such charge, it must record its
tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent
officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings.
The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have
to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity
to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable
conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice,
as we have already observed, require the authority which has to
take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an
opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a
representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings
on the charges framed against the officer.”
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Durga Prasad Vs. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi and Others reported in AIR 2025 SC 2101 has held as under:
“18. In the instant case, admittedly, there was no procedural lapse
in conducting the inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. No doubt,
initially, the Disciplinary Authority ordered for a de novo inquiry
but that order was set aside by CAT. Thereafter, the Disciplinary
Authority issued a disagreement note and proceeded to impose
punishment upon the appellant. There can be no cavil to the
existence of power with the Disciplinary Authority to disagree
with the opinion of the Inquiry Officer. But, in the event of
disagreement, he has to give brief reasons for his disagreement
and provide an opportunity to the employee to respond to such
disagreement note before forming its own opinion with regard to
imposition of punishment on the delinquent [Punjab National
Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84; (AIR 1998 SC
2713); and Yoginath Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and Another,
(1999) 7 SCC 739 : (AIR 1999 SC 3734)]. In the instant case, the
note issued by the Disciplinary Authority was more an expression
of opinion regarding the appellant being guilty than a note of
dissent with the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer. The High
Court, therefore, set aside the order of punishment with liberty to
the Disciplinary authority to issue fresh disagreement note.”
16. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sarfaraz
Hussain Vs. M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board and Others (order
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:37:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33023
14 WP-18954-2021
dated 13.03.2023- W.P.No.3267/2016) has held as under:
“5. In the case in hand, the Coordinate Bench in the case of
Virendra Kumar Swarnkar (supra) has observed as under :-
“6. As per Section 81-A read with Section 26 (2) of M.P.
Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam 1972, Rajya Mandi Board
Sewa Viniyam, 1998 have been formulated and have been
made effective w.e.f. 13.07.1998. As per Clause 32 (10) of
the Rajya Mandi Board Sewa Viniyam, 1998, which relates
to the procedure which is to be adopted for inflicting major
penalties, there is specific mention that the Disciplinary
Authority is required to furnish a copy of the inquiry report
to the delinquent and since the said Rajya Mandi Board Sewa
Viniyam, 1998 is having statutory force, the requirements
becomes mandatory. Admittedly, the inquiry report has not
been furnished to the petitioner and in absence thereof there
is a clear violation of the said Clause 32 (10) of the Rajya
Mandi Board Sewa Viniyam, 1998. Further, it is observed
that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well
as Appellate Authority are not in consonance with the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Kranti Associates (supra) as both are non speaking orders
and no reason has been assigned therein and thus vitiates
principle of natural justice as laid down by the Apex Court in
the above matter. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
matter of Punjab National Bank (Supra) which has been cited
by learned counsel for the petitioner specifically lays down
that in case an inquiry report is in favour of the petitioner and
the Disciplinary Authority is in disagreement with the said
inquiry report, the reasons are required to be accorded in that
context while disagreeing but from the order of the
Disciplinary Authority it is reflected that no reasoning has
been assigned while disagreeing with the inquiry report
which was in favour of the petitioner.
7. Thus, on these counts, the petition deserves to be allowed
and it is hereby allowed. The orders dated 20.11.2014
(Anneuxre P/1) and the order dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure
P/2) are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to
the Disciplinary Authority i.e. respondent No.2 for fresh
adjudication. Disciplinary Authority is directed to issue fresh
show cause notice and furnish the inquiry report to the
petitioner and thereafter after receiving the reply may take
appropriate decision in the matter and pass a necessary,
speaking and reasoned order.
8. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed
of.
9. Since the matter is an old matter, the disciplinary authority
is expected to decide the same within a period of four weeks
from the date of receiving of certified copy of the order."
6. In view of the above, this petition is also disposed of in the light
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:37:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33023
15 WP-18954-2021
of the order dated 15.02.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No.3046 of 2016 (Virendra Kumar Swarnkar S/o. Shri Laxaman
Kishore Swarnkar vs. Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh State
Agricultural Marketing Board and Others) and that order shall
apply mutatis mutandis in the present matter. As consequence
thereof, the impugned order dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure P/1) and
the order dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure P/2) are hereby set aside."
17. The relevant portion of the appellate order dated 13.01.2020
(Annexure P-2) reads as under:-
महािनर क पंजीयन ारा यह भी उ 3लेख कया गया क अपीलाथ M ारा
अिनयिमत एवं लापरवाह पूण ढंग से कये गये 0थल िनर ण कया
गया। संप )/ क ( वा 0त)वक ;0थित के आधार पर कये गये मू 3य
7.30
िनधा रण के फल 0वKप शासन को Kपये लाख क ( राज 0व हािन
काश म आई। हर शासक (य अिधकार का यह दािय Uव है क वह
,
शासक (य राज 0व का र ण कर । अतएव दया गया द Yड अ Uय3प होने
अपील तक हन एवं औिच Uयहन होने से खा ?रज कया जाना तथा
अनुशासिनक ािधकार का आदेश )विधनुकूल होकर िनयमानुसार होने
से ;0थर रखा जाना उिचत होगा।
6/
अतः करण के सम 0त त ZयS एवं प ?र;0थितयS के काश म Iी
, , -1
ह ?रओम शमा उप पंजीयक वृ / पर अिधरो )पत आरोप मा;णत होने
59/ - /2017
के कारण महािनर क पंजीयन के आदेश कमांक 0था जांच
16.08.2018
दनांक म द गयी शा ;0त को यथावत रखते Iी शमा
हुये
*ारा शासन म 0तुत अपील को )वचारोपरांत अमा Gय क ( जाती है।
18. From perusal of the order passed in appeal dated 13.01.2020
(Annexure P/2), it is clear that the appellate authority, while passing the
order of a Government servant, is exercising quasi-judicial powers and even
the quasi judicial orders must be speaking orders. The appellate authority
must apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances and record valid
and justifiable reasons or grounds in support of its conclusion. On perusal of
the appellate order, it does not appear to be a speaking one.
19. It is a settled position in law that when a discretion is vested in an
authority to exercise a particular power, the same is required to be exercised
with due diligence, and in reasonable and rational manner. The Hon'ble
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:37:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33023
16 WP-18954-2021
Supreme Court in catena of decisions has reiterated time and again the
necessity and importance of giving reasons by the authority in support of its
decision. It has been held that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial
authority or even by an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties
must speak. The affected party must know how his case or defence was
considered before passing the prejudicial order.
20. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab v/s. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 is
relevant to quote. In the said decision it had been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that every decision of an administrative or executive nature
must be a composite and selfsustaining one, in that it should contain all the
reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his
conclusion.
21. In the same judgment in paragraph 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
clarifies that the Government does not have carte blanche to take any
decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced
decision. Its decision must be informed and impregnated with reasons.
Paragraph 7 of the said decision is quoted as under:-
“7. The same principle was upheld more recently in Ram Kishun
v. State of U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382.
However, we must hasten to clarify that the Government does not
have a carte blanche to take any decision it chooses to; it cannot
take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision
must be informed and impregnated with reasons.
This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of
this Court, including in Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N
Publications Ltd (1993) 1 SCC 445, Tata Cellular v. Union of
India (1994) 6 SCC 651, Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International
Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617, B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair
Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 548 and Jagdish Mandal v.
State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517”.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:37:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33023
17 WP-18954-2021
22. Also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kranti Associates (supra) highlights this point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in paragraph 15 opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi judicial
authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties,
must speak. It must not be like the inscrutable face of a sphinx. In paragraph
47 the Honb'le Supreme Court summarized its discussion. The relevant sub-
paragraphs of the said summary are quoted as under:-
“47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component
of a decisionmaking process as observing principles of natural
justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative
bodies.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of
law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned
decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of
judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the
soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as
different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these
decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by
reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered.
This is important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice
delivery system.
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the
broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said
requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was
considered part of Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v.
Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University
of Oxford 2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA), wherein the Court referred
to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which
requires,“adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for
judicial decisions”.
23. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.D.
Bind (supra) has held as under:
“15. That apart, another aspect of the matter warrants
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:37:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33023
18 WP-18954-2021
consideration. The irregularities which is found against the
petitioner is only nonfollowing of certain procedure in the matter
of awarding contract. The question is as to whether such an
irregularity in the matter of following the procedure can be termed
as a misconduct. The Supreme Court has considered the aforesaid
aspect in the case of Union of India v. J. Ahmed (AIR 1979 SC
1022) which has been followed again by the Supreme Court in the
case of Inspector Prem Chand v. Govt. of National Capital
Territory of Delhi and others [(2007) 4 SCC 1022] ; wherein it has
been held by the Supreme Court that merely lack of efficiency,
failure to attain the highest standard of administrative ability or
negligent or careless wat of dealing with a matter on one isolated
may not constituted a misconduct for which punishment can be
imposed.
16. In the present case apart from the fact that the Division Bench
has made the observations as reproduced herein above and
interfered with the imposition of cost, it found that there was
certain discrepancy in the guidelines laid down and, therefore, in
paragraph 9 fresh guidelines for future action was issued. Once
this is the factual scenario then merely because the petitioner failed
to follow the guidelines for once, it cannot be said that the
petitioner has committed misconduct in the matter. At best action
of the petitioner may fall in the category of careless or negligence
in the matter of dealing with the case once an isolated occasion
and if the principles laid down by the Supreme Court as indicated
in the case of J. Ahmed (supra) is applied, we are of the
considered view that allegations levelled even do not amount to
misconduct for which action can be taken.”
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court is left with no option but to set aside the punishment
order dated 16.08.2017 and the appellate order dated 13.01.2020.
Accordingly, both the aforesaid orders are hereby set aside.
25. Consequently, the respondents are directed to extend all
consequential service and retiral benefits to the petitioner, including
refixation and revision of pay, arrears of salary arising therefrom, revision of
pension, arrears of pension and all other consequential retiral benefits
admissible to him in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall be
completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:37:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33023
19 WP-18954-2021
certified copy of this order.
26. It is further observed that the petitioner has already retired from
service on 30.04.2020 upon attaining the age of superannuation and, as
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, is presently about 69 years of
age. The Board of Revenue has already set aside the earlier orders and
remanded the matter for reassessment on the basis of the inspection report
submitted by the petitioner. Further, in view of the law laid down in S.D.
Bind (supra), the allegations levelled against the petitioner, as reflected in the
present case, do not constitute misconduct merely on the ground of alleged
carelessness. In these circumstances, and considering that the petitioner has
already retired from service, no liberty is granted to the respondents to
initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the
same allegations.
27. In the event the respondents fail to extend the aforesaid
consequential monetary benefits within the stipulated period of three months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the outstanding
amount payable to the petitioner shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the expiry of the said period until actual payment.
28. In view of the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of in the
above terms.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
AVI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:37:02 AM