The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramsevak Shukla

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26446
1 WA-1695-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
st
ON THE 31 OF AUGUST, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 1695 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RAMSEVAK SHUKLA
Appearance:
Shri Sohit Mishra - Government Advocate for the appellants /State.
Shri G.S. Sharma - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anuradha Shukla
1. State has preferred this writ appeal under section 2 (1) of Madhya
Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam of
2005 assailing the order passed by writ court on 28/10/2025 in W.P. No.
1305/2013 (Ramsevak Shukla vs. State of M.P. & Ors.).
2. The appellants have preferred the appeal with a delay of 108 days
and for condonation of delay I.A. No. 7052/2026 has been preferred. The
reasons assigned for delay is claimed to be the time taken in communication,
processing and preparing the appeal.
3. Respondent has contested the application claiming that the appeal
was conceived only when an order for issuing notice in the contempt case
CONC. No. 2287/2026 was passed on 08/04/2026. Thus, challenging the
bonafides of the appellants, a request has been made to dismiss the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 9/8/2026
6:32:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26446
2 WA-1695-2026
application.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the application.
5 . The contents of the application reveal that the permission to file
appeal was granted as early as on 23/03/2026, much prior to the date of
issuing notice in the contempt case and there was, apparently, no malafide
intention to prefer an appeal only after institution of the contempt case. With
these facts on record, application for condonation of delay, duly supported
with an affidavit, is allowed.
6. The writ petition was preferred by the respondent, who was given
show cause notices on 09/03/2011 and on 24/05/2012. After issuance of first
notice, a departmental enquiry was held and punishment of withholding one
annual increment for one year without cumulative effect was passed on
30/04/2012 (vide P/4). The second notice was issued by observing that
quantum of punishment imposed was on the lower side as compared to the
gravity of charge. Respondent submitted his reply, but without giving any
opportunity of being heard personally, an order was passed against him on
31/05/2012 (vide P/3). Appeal preferred by the respondent was also
dismissed on 29/08/2012 (vide P/2) and even the mercy petition faced the
same fate on 17/12/2012 (P/1), hence, writ petition was preferred seeking
following reliefs :-
"(i) That, the impugned orders dated 17/12/12
(Annexure P/1), 29/8/12 (Annexure P/2), 31/5/12
(Annexure P/3) and 30/4/12 (Annexure P/4) passed by
the Respondent no.2,3,4 and 5 respectively may kindly
be quashed.
(ii) That, any other relief may be granted which this
hon'ble Court deems fit."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 9/8/2026
6:32:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26446
3 WA-1695-2026
7. Writ Court has observed that any order in a suo motu review should

be passed only after affording an opportunity of hearing. and for this reliance
has been placed on the citation of Fazal Bhai Dhala vs. The Custodian -
General, Evacuee Property, New Delhi and another and the Custodian
Evacuee Property, Madras AIR 1961 SC 1397. It is held that for no
opportunity of personal hearing being afforded to the respondent, the order
passed by the reviewing authority cannot be given the stamp of approval.
The writ petition has, accordingly, been allowed by quashing Annexures P/1
to P/3 and directing the respondents (appellants herein) to extend the
consequential benefits to the petitioner (respondent herein) within a period of
three months.
8. In the present appeal, State is challenging the impugned order on the
ground that Regulation No. 270 of M.P. Police Regulation was duly
complied with by issuance of notice to the respondent and allowing him an
opportunity to file reply. Thus, the order passed by the Deputy Inspector
General of Police was well within four corners of prescribed procedure and
its legality could not have been questioned. Accordingly, a request has been
made to allow the appeal.
9 . Per contra, respondent has opposed the appeal on the strength of
reasonings given in the impugned order.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
11. Clause 4 of Regulation No. 270 of M.P. Police Regulation allows
the revising authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to exonerate,
remit, vary or enhance the punishment imposed or to order a fresh enquiry of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 9/8/2026
6:32:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26446
4 WA-1695-2026
taking further evidence in the case. In this case, the concerned authority was

of the view that punishment imposed on respondent was not corresponding to
the charges proved against him and enhanced punishment was required to be
imposed on him, therefore, a notice was admittedly issued to him, however,
no opportunity of personal hearing was given nor any direction was issued to
hold fresh enquiry. Furthermore, under Annexure P/3, respondent was
awarded major penalty of withholding one annual increment for a year with
cumulative effect.
12. Learned counsel for appellant has relied upon two decisions of
High Court of M.P. Bench at Gwalior deciding writ petition Smt. Jyoti
Nigam Vs. State of M.P., W.P. No.5797/2012 and the writ appeal Smt. Jyoti
Nigam Vs. State of M.P., with WA No.934/2025 against the decision of
W.P. No. 5795/2012. In both these orders it was observed that the judgment
passed in the case of Santlal Vs. State of M.P. and Others, WA No.414/2017
decided on 30.10.2017 cannot be invoked even if the opportunity of personal
hearing is not provided to the delinquent officer. Those two cases are
distinguishable on facts that after giving a notice to show-cause, the
concerned authority had directed to conduct a regular departmental enquiry,
instead of straightaway imposing a major punishment only on the basis of
reply filed by the delinquent employee. Obviously the employee had due
opportunity of hearing by participating in the departmental enquiry, hence
permitting him a personal hearing was not at all required in the facts of those
cases. In the present case, no enquiry was ordered by the revising authority
and without giving any opportunity of personal hearing to the respondent, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 9/8/2026
6:32:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26446
5 WA-1695-2026
revising authority imposed a punishment of the category of major

punishment.
13. In the case of Fazal Bhai Dhala(Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
laid down the legal proposition that if the custodian after perusal of order
passed by this subordinate officers was of the opinion that the punishment
deserved modification, he was required to send a show-cause notice and
allow the person concerned to appear either personally or through counsel
and give him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The emphasis in the
order was on the hearing either personally or through counsel and the Court
was of the opinion that without providing such an opportunity no order
prejudicial in nature could have been passed against the person concerned.
Merely taking a written reply in answer to a show-cause notice, thus, can not
be considered as due compliance of the principles of natural justice.
1 4 . In view of facts and the legal proposition applicable to the
circumstances of the case, no case has been made out to warrant the
interference of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal preferred against the
impugned order is dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
JUDGE
Durgekar

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 9/8/2026
6:32:28 PM