Mohan Prasad Sharma vs Chairman

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31967
1 WP. No. 6689 of 2014
THE IN HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 15 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6689 of 2014
CNR No.: MPHC030225872014
MOHAN PRASAD SHARMA
Versus
CHAIRMAN, MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narottam Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Mahesh Prasad Agrawal- Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s): -
“1 That, the arbitrary orders impugned in this petition regarding
major punishment under rule 38 (1) (B) (V) of Gramin Bank
(officers and employees) Service Rules 2006 vide Annexure P/1
and P/2 passed by respondents may kindly be quash.
2 That, charge sheet vide annexure P-3, findings of inquiry officer
vide annexure P-6 being contrary to record and against
documentary evidence, may kindly be quash.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
7:11:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31967
2 WP. No. 6689 of 2014
3 Cost of petition be kindly be allowed.”
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that at the relevant point of
time petitioner was working in the respondent/Bank as a Branch Manager- Scale
II. A charge-sheet dated 24.06.2009 was issued against petitioner alleging
misconduct to which petitioner submitted his reply. However, without
considering the reply, the Disciplinary Authority appointed Enquiry Officer and
Presenting Officer. Whereafter Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and
submitted enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary
Authority supplied the copy of enquiry report to petitioner and asked him to file
reply. Petitioner submitted his detailed reply dated 08.04.2011. It is submitted
that various facts and grounds were mentioned in the reply dated 08.04.2011 but
without considering the facts and grounds mentioned in the reply by passing non-
speaking and unreasoned order dated 02.11.2011 (Annexure P-2), major
punishment under Rule 38 (1) (B) (V) of Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees)
Service Rules 2006 of reduction to a lower stage in scale of pay from III to II
while fixing scale of pay at Rs.19,400/- lowest in scale has been awarded. Irked
by order dated 02.11.2011, petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate
Authority and the Appellate Authority did also not consider the fact that
punishment order was non-speaking and unreasoned and ultimately rejected the
appeal vide order dated 27.11.2013. Being dissatisfied by the same, petitioner
preferred Review Appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate
Authority decided the said appeal with partial modification in basic from
19,400/- to 25,700/-. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority did not consider
that the punishment order Annexure P-2 dated 02.11.2011 is a non-speaking and
unreasoned order and is against the principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
7:11:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31967
3 WP. No. 6689 of 2014
Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v/s Masood Ahmed Khan and others
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 .
3. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while
opposing the prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner contends that
after recording of its full satisfaction the Appellate Authority arrived at a
conclusion that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority had been passed
after due consideration and cannot be faulted with and ultimately prays for
dismissal of instant petition.
4. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Relevant portion of the impugned punishment order dated 02.11.2011
(Annexure P/2) passed by Disciplinary Authority reads as under:-
mijksä leLr çdj.k ,oa fl) ik;s x;s vkjksiksa dh xaHkhjrk dks –f"Vxr j[krs
gq, dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= Øekad lrdZrk@654 fnukad 08-03-2011 }kjk Jh
'kekZ] vkjksfir vf/kdkjh dks e/; Hkkjr xzkeh.k cSad ¼vf/kdkjh vkSj deZpkjh½ lsok
fofu;e 2006 dh /kkjk 38 ¼1½ ¼[k½ ¼ v ½ ds rgr~ inP;qfr ¼ Dismissal ½ dk n.M
çLrkfor dj uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa ds varxZr mudks viuk i{k çLrqr djus
dk ,d vkSj volj fn;k x;kA
dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= Øekad lrdZrk@654 fnukad 08-03-2011] ij muds }kjk
çLrqr çfrmÙkj fnukad 08-04-2011 dk eSaus lexzrk ls v/;;u o euu fd;kA
dkj.k crkvks lwpuk ij Jh 'kekZ] vkjksfir vf/kdkjh }kjk dksbZ uohu rF; vFkok
oSpkfjd –f"Vdks.k çLrqr ugh fd;k x;k gS ftlls vfu;ferrkvksa ij muds —R;
dks mfpr ;k fu;ekuqlkj ekuk tk lds flok; blds fd muds cpko çfrosnu
fnukad 29-11-2010 ftls muds }kjk {ks=h; dk;kZy; Vhdex<+ ds i= Øekad
ç'kklu@913@10&11 fnukad 07-12-2010 }kjk ç/kku dk;kZy;&vxzsf"kr fd;k x;k
Fkk] dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= tkjh djus ls igys v/kksgLrkjdrkZ }kjk laKku ugha
fy;k x;k gS Jh 'kekZ dk ;g dFku vlR; gSA
çdj.k esa lexz :i ls fopkj ds mijkar gh dkj.k crkvks lwpuk vkns'k ikfjr
fd;k x;k FkkA mijksDr rF;ksa ds vykok vkjksfir vf/kdkjh Jh 'kekZ ds orZeku esa
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
7:11:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31967
4 WP. No. 6689 of 2014
v'kksduxj 'kk[kk esa ,uih, olwyh esa fd, x, dqN vPNs dk;Z] mudh yxu ,oa
iwoZ cSad fgr esa fd, x, ç'kaluh; dk;ksaZ ds ifjçs{; esa cSad }kjk uez :[k viukrs
gq, ijUrq cSad çfØ;k ,oa ç.kkyhxr vusd =qfV;ksa@vfu;ferrkvksa dks /;ku esa
j[krs gq, Jh 'kekZ] vkjksfir vf/kdkjh dks dkj.k crkvks lwpuk esa e/; Hkkjr xzkeh.k
cSad ¼vf/kdkjh vkSj deZpkjh½ lsok fofu;e 2006 dh /kkjk 38 ¼1½ ¼[k½ ¼ v ½ ds
varxZr çLrkfor n.M esa deh djrs gq,] mijksä lsok fofu;e 2006 dh /kkjk 38
¼1½ ¼[k½ ¼AA½ ds varxZr] eSa] Jh 'kekZ] vkjksfir vf/kdkjh dks muds orZeku in
vf/kdkjh e-ç- Js.kh AAA esa deh@vour djrs gq, mUgsa vf/kdkjh e-iz- Js.kh AA ds
₹
U;wure osrueku ¼ewy osru 19]400@&½ ij ykus dk n.M nsrk gw¡A ;g n.M]
bl vkns'k dh Jh 'kekZ dh çkfIr fnukad ls çHkko'khy gksxkA
bl n.Mkns'k ds fo:) Jh 'kekZ cSad dh lsok'krksaZ ds çko/kkuksa ds vuq:i l{ke
çkf/kdkjh dks vihy dj ldrs gSA
bl vkns'k dh f}rh; çfr ij iw.kZ gLRkk{kj o fnukad;qDr Jh 'kekZ dh ikorh çkIr
dj] vfHkys[k gsrq ges çsf"kr djsaA
7. From perusal of the impugned punishment order dated 02.11.2011
(Annexure P/2), it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority, while passing
imposing the punishment order of a Government servant, is exercising quasi-
judicial powers and even the quasi -judicial orders must be speaking orders. The
Disciplinary 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 punishment order, it does not appear to be a speaking one.
8. The relevant part of impugned appeal rejection order dated 27.11.2013
(Annexure P/1) passed by Appellate Authority reads as under:-
ekg Qjojh 2013 esa vkids }kjk ,uih, VªsDVj _.kksa esa dh xbZ olwyh dh leh{kk esa
ik;k fd] 'kk[kk v'kksduxj esa vkidh inLFkkiuk ds 08&09 ekg i'pkr 20-27 % dh
olwyh ,uih, VªsDVjksa esa dh xbZ gS] tks funs'kd e.My }kjk fu/kkZfjr 'krksaZ ds vuq:i
ugha gksus ds dkj.k v/;{k egksn; }kjk olwyh leh{kk funs'kd Hk.My ds le{k çLrqr
fd, tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA funs'kd e.My }kjk viuh cSBd fnukad 30-10-2013
:
esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fuEukuqlkj gS &
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
7:11:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31967
5 WP. No. 6689 of 2014
funs'kd e.My }kjk çLrqr olwyh leh{kk dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA funs'kd e.My
ds vuqlkj Jh 'kekZ] vf/kdkjh fu;r vof/k ¼06 ekg½ esa fu/kkZfjr olwyh çfr'kr~ ¼20 % ½
çkIr djus esa vlQy jgsA vr% loZlEefr ls Jh 'kekZ }kjk çLrqr vihy fujLr dh
tkrh gSA
—i;k rnuqlkj voxr gksA
bl i= dh f}rh; çfr ij iw.kZ gLrk{kj o fnukad;qä vkidh ikorh i= çkfIr fnol
dks gh] gekjs vfHkys[k gsrq lkSaisa
—rs & funs'kd e.My ds fufeÙk
9. From perusal of the appellate order dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure P/1), it is
clear that the Appellate Authority, while passing imposing the appellate 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
7:11:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31967
6 WP. No. 6689 of 2014
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.
12. 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”.
13. Also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti
Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another (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:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
7:11:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31967
7 WP. No. 6689 of 2014
" 47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds :
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
7:11:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31967
8 WP. No. 6689 of 2014
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
7:11:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31967
9 WP. No. 6689 of 2014
decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due
Process".
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. Respondents have not filed the decision taken by the Board of Directors
dated 30.10.2013, therefore, in absence of the decision taken by the Board of
Directors dated 30.10.2013, the appeal rejection order dated 27.11.2013 is a non-
speaking and unreasoned order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
7:11:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31967
10 WP. No. 6689 of 2014
15. In view of the above discussion and the circumstances of the case, I am left
with no choice but to set aside the impugned punishment order dated 02.11.2011
(Annexure P/2) passed by the Disciplinary Authority, appeal rejection order dated
27.11.2013 (Annexure P/1) and Review Appellate Order dated 07.05.2014 and
accordingly I do so.
16. Consequently, respondents are directed to give all consequential/monetary
benefits to petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. As petitioner has already stood retired, therefore, no
liberty is granted to the respondents to take fresh action against petitioner.
17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands
disposed of .
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
7:11:18 PM