Munnalal Verma vs The Nanaji Deshmukh Pashu Chikitsha Vigan Vishawavidyalaya

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66450
1 WP-14354-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
st
ON THE 31 OF AUGUST, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 14354 of 2016
MUNNALAL VERMA
Versus
THE NANAJI DESHMUKH PASHU CHIKITSHA VIGAN
VISHAWAVIDYALAYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Karamjeet Singh Wadhwa - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
a. To issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing; the
impugned order dt. 03.08.2016 (Ann.P/1), passed by the
respondent No.2.
b. To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding;
respondent to return the recovered amount to the Petitioner, with
all consequential benefits, arising thereof;
c. To call for the relevant records, for kind perusal of this Hon’ble
Court;
d. Any other relief’s deemed fit on facts and circumstances of the
instant case.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a
Daily Rated Seasonal Labour and after completing the requisite five years of
service, was placed in the category of Time Scale Labour vide order dated
09.12.1983 (Annexure P/2), drawing a fixed pay from the University’s
contingency fund. He was posted as Chowkidar at Joint Livestock Farm,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/2/2026
1:40:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66450
2 WP-14354-2016
Adhartal, where about 19 Chowkidars and 3 Gate Keepers were deployed.

Upon two buffaloes bearing Nos. MB-25 and MB-1668 being found missing,
the respondents constituted a University Level Enquiry Committee. The
petitioner was called before the Committee to enquire into the matter and
made to sign certain papers, but the allegations, contents of the documents
and purpose of the enquiry were neither disclosed nor explained to him.
Thereafter, vide relieving order dated 06.08.2016, pursuant to an undisclosed
transfer order dated 03.08.2016, he was transferred to Aman Nalla Farm.
Subsequently, he was informed that, pursuant to the impugned order
(Annexure P/1), recovery of Rs.51,500/- towards the cost of the missing
buffaloes had been imposed upon him, to be recovered in 24 instalments
from his salary. The petitioner submits that no show-cause notice or effective
opportunity of hearing was afforded to him and neither the enquiry report nor
the impugned order was supplied to him despite repeated requests and his
representation dated 17.08.2016 (Annexure P/5).
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by
impugned order dated 03/08/2016, the petitioner has been found to be
negligent in performing his duty, which was against Rule 3(1)(i), (ii), (iii),
(3-a), (c) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.
Accordingly, the petitioner was subjected to recovery of Rs. 51,500/- for the
theft of buffaloes caused during his service time.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner was working with the respondent
University as a time-scale labour. The petitioner was working as a
Watchman, and during his work shift, two buffaloes were stolen between
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/2/2026
1:40:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66450
3 WP-14354-2016
12:00 AM to 8:00 AM. It is submitted that on this charge, the petitioner was

not given any show cause notice or inquiry as contemplated under the M.P.
Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966 was ever been done, but directly an order
of recovery dated 03/08/2016 has been passed showing that the petitioner has
committed misconduct. It is submitted that though the petitioner was working
as a time-scale labour, it doesn't mean that the respondents are exempted
from following the due course as provided under the rules. The punishment
of recovery is a minor punishment and, therefore, the respondents ought to
have given due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to substantiate that he
was not responsible for the said theft. It is also submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner stood retired in the year 2018.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the
petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing by the Committee
constituted to conduct the inquiry in the matter. The three-member
committee vide its report Annexure R-1 has found that the petitioner was
deployed in a shift from 12:00 AM to 8:00 AM, and during that time only,
theft of two buffaloes had taken place. Therefore, finding the petitioner
responsible for said theft and quantifying the amount of those buffaloes, the
Committee has opined that the amount of cost of the buffaloes be recovered
from the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03/08/2016 has
been passed. Therefore, the order is absolutely in consonance of law and
does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. From perusal of the inquiry report Annexure R-1 dated 18.01.2016,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/2/2026
1:40:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66450
4 WP-14354-2016
it is found by this Court that the Committee formed an opinion on the basis

of the deployment of the three watchmen in shifts and found that the
petitioner was deployed at 12:00 AM to 8:00 AM, and in between that time
the theft had taken place. However, from perusal of the minutes of the
inquiry, it is found that the Committee itself has got confused with the
timings of the employees deployed in shifts by referring AM as PM.
However, it is also found that the petitioner was asked that in which shift he
was working when incident took place and he has admitted that he was
deployed from 12:00 AM to 8:00 AM. However, as a matter of fact, it is not
found whether any criminal investigation has been done by the respondent
University and whether the petitioner was found guilty of theft or not. As a
matter of fact, the petitioner was charged with negligence that despite his
deployment, two buffaloes were stolen at night. Therefore, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the petitioner ought to have been given sufficient
opportunity to rebut the charges by leading cogent evidence in support of it.
Therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality and has been passed
violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order
dated 03/08/2016 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the
authorities to conduct an inquiry by giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, if so advised, and pass appropriate speaking order.
8. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/2/2026
1:40:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66450
5 WP-14354-2016
HS


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/2/2026
1:40:52 PM