Ram Prakash Singh Gurjar vs State Of M.P.
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34207
1 WP-1534-2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 5 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1534 of 2008
CNR No.: MPHC030056712008
RAM PRAKASH SINGH GURJAR
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
None for the petitioner.
Shri B.M. Patel - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
" (1) The impugned orders Annexure P-1 and P-22
passed by respondent no 2 and 1 may kindly be quashed
(2) Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit
in the facts and circumstances of the case be also
allowed.
(3) The cost of the instant petition be also allowed to the
petitioner."
2. As per the averments made in the petition, on the basis of certain
allegations, a show-cause notice dated 26.05.2006 (Annexure P/17) was
issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1966. Thereafter,
the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 07.07.2006 (Annexure P/18),
raising various facts and grounds. The respondent department subsequently
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
5:48:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34207
2 WP-1534-2008
provided an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the
petitioner again submitted a reply/explanation dated 07.08.2006 (Annexure
P/20), wherein various facts and grounds were raised.
3. As per the averments made in the petition that without considering
the facts and grounds raised in the aforesaid reply/explanation, the
respondents passed the impugned order dated 23.12.2006 (Annexure P/1),
whereby punishment of withholding one annual increment without
cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.28,200/- was imposed upon the
petitioner. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner thereafter
preferred an appeal, but the appellate authority also failed to consider the
aforesaid aspects and rejected the appeal vide order dated 20.11.2007
(Annexure P/22). As per the averments made in the petition, the impugned
orders are non-speaking and unreasoned and has been passed without
considering the petitioner's explanation and is contrary to judgment reported
i n M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State supported the
impugned orders and opposed the prayer made in the petition. It is submitted
that the impugned orders were passed after considering each and every fact
and ground raised by the petitioner in his reply/explanation. On these
grounds he prays for rejection of this petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Important part of the punishment order dated 23.12.2006 is quoted
herein below:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
5:48:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34207
3 WP-1534-2008
"...............
और चूँ क अनुशासिनक अिधकार
( ) / -5- /4-2005/962,
संचालक कृ ष के मांक अ अ
23.5.2006
दनाँक ारा म य देश िस वल सेवा
( ) 1966
वग करण िनयं "ण एवं अपील िनयम के
-16
िनयम के अंतग 'त कारण बताओ नो टस जार
(
कर म य देश िस वल सेवा वग करण िनयं "ण
) 1966 -12 (2)
एवं अपील िनयम के िनयम ारा
द- अिधकार . का उपयोग कर म य देश
( )
िस वल सेवा वग करण िनयं "ण एवं अपील
1966 -10 (3) (4)
िनयम के िनयम एवं के अंतग 'त
28,200 ( )
रािश 0पये अठाईस हजार दो सौ मा "
क 5 वसूली एवं आगामी एक वेतन वृ 7 असंचयी
भाव से रोकने क 5 शा 9:त ;य. न अिधरो पत क 5
,
जाये जार कया गया ।
और चूँ क आपके ारा उपरो = कारण बताओ
7.7.2006
नो टस का ितवाद उ -र दनॉ?क को
:तुत कया गया। ितवाद उ -र के प @रपेAय म B
7.8.2006
दनॉक को आप Cय=गत सुनवाई म B
उप 9:थत एवं Cय=गत सुनवाई के समय
हुए
िल 9खत ितवाद उ -र :तुत कया गया। ाF
-
उ -र का भली भाँित अवलोकन एवं पर Gण कया
गया। 9जसमB पाया क आपके ारा ऐसे कोई
अिभलेख सा Aय :तुत कये है 9जनसे आपके
बचाव क 5 पु J नह ं होती है।
( )
अतः अनुशासिनक अिधकार संचालक कृ ष
,
म य देश भोपाल ारा म य देश िस वल सेवा
( ) 1966
वग करण िनयं "ण एवं अपील िनयम के
-12 (2)
िनयम म B द- अिधकार . का उपयोग कर
(
म य देश िस वल सेवा वग करण िनयं "ण एवं
) 10 (3)
अपील िनयम के अंतग 'त शासन हािन
28,200/ (
0पये रािश 0पये अठाईस हजार दौ सौ
) -10 (4)
मा " क 5 वसूली एवं िनयम के अंतग 'त
एक वेतन वृ 7 असंचयी भाव से रोकने का
"
अंितम िनण 'य िलया जाता है।
7. From perusal of the punishment order issued by the Disciplinary
Authority dated 23.12.2006, it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority while
passing an order imposing punishment upon the petitioner, is exercising
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
5:48:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34207
4 WP-1534-2008
quasi judicial power and even the quasi judicial order must be a speaking
order. The Disciplinary Authority must apply its mind to the entire facts and
circumstances and record valid and justifiable reason and all grounds in
support of its conclusion.
8. On perusal of the punishment order, it does not appear to be a
speaking one.
9. 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
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.
10. 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 self-sustaining one, in that it should contain all the
reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his
conclusion.
11. In the same judgment in paragraph 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
clarifies that the Government does not have carte blanche to take any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
5:48:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34207
5 WP-1534-2008
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” 31.
12. Also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v/s Masood Ahmed Khan and others
cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
5:48:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34207
6 WP-1534-2008
(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”.
13. As disciplinary authority has issued a non-speaking and
unreasoned order, therefore, in absence of reason in the punishment order
cannot be compensated by disclosure of reason in the appellate order,
therefore, the argument of counsel for respondent is not sustainable that the
appellate order is reasoned and speaking order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case Oryx Fisheries Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors; (2010) 13 SCC
427 has held as under:-
"41. In M/s Kranti Associates (supra), this Court after
considering various judgments formulated certain
principles in para 51 of the judgment which are set out
below
a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record
reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such
decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in
support of its conclusions.
c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve
the wider principle of justice that justice must not only
be done it must also appear to be done as well.
d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint
on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-
judicial or even administrative power.
e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised
by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
5:48:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34207
7 WP-1534-2008
disregarding extraneous considerations.
f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a
component of a decision making process as observing
principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial
and even by administrative bodies.
g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by
superior Courts.
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 life blood 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.
j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial
accountability and transparency.
k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid
enough about his/her decision making process then it is
impossible to know whether the person deciding is
faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of
incrementalism.
l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear
and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp
reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision
making process.
m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua
non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers.
Transparency in decision making not only makes the
judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also
makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David
Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100
Harward Law Review 731-737).
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 Strasbourg
Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29
and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ
405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of
European Convention of Human Rights which requires,
"adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for
judicial decisions". o. In all common law jurisdictions
judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for
the future. Therefore, for development of law,
requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the
essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
5:48:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34207
8 WP-1534-2008
42. In the instant case the appellate order contains
reasons. However, absence of reasons in the original
order cannot be compensated by disclosure of reason in
the appellate order.
43. In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v.
L.K. Ratna and others,(1986) 4 SCC 537, it has been
held:
"......after the blow suffered by the initial
decision, it is difficult to contemplate
complete restitution through an appellate
decision. Such a case is unlike an action for
money or recovery of property, where the
execution of the trial decree may be stayed
pending appeal, or a successful appeal may
result in refund of the money or restitution of
the property, with appropriate compensation
by way of interest or mesne profits for the
period of deprivation. And, therefore, it
seems to us, there is manifest need to ensure
that there is no breach of fundamental
procedure in the original proceeding, and to
avoid treating an appeal as an overall
substitute for the original proceeding."
44. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court quashes the
show cause notice as also the order dated 19.03.2008
passed by the third respondent. In view of that, the
appellate order has no legs to stand and accordingly is
quashed."
14. In view of the above discussions and the facts and circumstances
of the case, I am left with no choice but to set aside impugned punishment
order dated 23.12.2006 (Annexure P/1) and appeal rejection order dated
20.11.2007 (Annexure P/22).
15. Consequently respondents are directed to to give all consequential
benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order and as petitioner has already retired,
therefore, no liberty is granted to the respondents to take action against the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
5:48:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34207
9 WP-1534-2008
petitioner.
16. With aforesaid observations and directions, preset Writ Petition is
hereby disposed of.
17. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the
petitioner by registered post.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
vpn/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
5:48:03 PM