Smt. Kalawati Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided on: 08-04-2026

<div> NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11528 1 WP-17480-2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 8 OF APRIL, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 17480 of 2017 SMT. KALAWATI KUSHWAHA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Sameer Kumar Jain - Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Smrati Sharma - Deputy Government Advocate for respondents/State. ORDER This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "A. That, the order Annexure P/1 & P/2 passed by the respondent no.2 & 3 may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice. B: Any other relief & cost which is just and proper may also be given." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the relevant point of time, petitioner was posted as ANM in District Hospital, Morar. An order by way of notice was given to respondent No.3, by which, the petitioner was placed under suspension with the allgation of negligence and dereliction of duty and previously also, on the same, charge-sheet has been issued and the petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet. Thereafter, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:27:10 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11528 2 WP-17480-2017 respondent No. 3 - Collector has suspended the petitioner and issued the charge-sheet and conducted the enquiry and also passed the impugned order dated 26.07.2017 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, petitioner has prefered W.P. No.5180/2017 and that has been disposed of by order dated 17.08.2017 with a direction to the pettioner to prefer an appeal and Divisional Commissioner has directed to decide the appeal by speaking order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thereafter the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior has decided the appeal and rejected the appeal by non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 09.10.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that detailed reply has been submitted by the petitioner and also detailed appeal memo has been submitted before the Appellate Authority, but the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority has not considered the facts and grounds mentioned in the reply/appeal memo and imposed the punishment by non-speaking, unreasoned order. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State while opposing the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after recording of its full satisfaction the Appellate Courts had arrived to a conclusion that the order passed by the disciplinary authority had been passed after due consideration and cannot be faulted with, but candidly admitted that while concurring with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority, no reasoning had been assigned. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Important part of the punishment order dated 26.07.2017 (Annexure P/2) passed by Disciplinary Authority reads as under:- Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:27:10 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11528 3 WP-17480-2017 3/ , ीमती कलावती िनलं बत टॉफ नस सूित गृह जला , िच कसालय मुरार के व"# जार $ आरोप प (ाद उनके +ारा तुत 6-6-2017, , उ ,र दनॉक मु -य िच कसा एवं वा/य अिधकार $ िस वल सज न सह मु -य अ पताल अधी 2क मुरार +ारा दए गए अिभमत एवं करण से संबंिधत अिभलेख का अवलोकन कया गया। , ीमती कलावती िनलं बत टॉफ नस +ारा रा (कालीन 7यूट$ के दौरान अपने पद $य दािय व9 का िनव हन पूव सजगता के साथ न करते , शासक <य काय के ित लापरवाह $ उदासीनता व कत =यवमुख हुए , : आचरण का प >रचय दया गया है अत ीमती कलावती कुशवाह +ारा "02 तुत उ ,र समाधानकारक होना नह $ं पाए जाने से उनक < " वा षक वेतनवृ #य9 असंचयी भाव से से रोक < जाकर िनल Aबन से बहाल कया जाता है व बहाली उपरा Bत ीमती कुशवाह क < पद थापना सामुदाियक वा/य के BC िभतरवार क < जाती है तथा उनक < िनल Aबन अविध सम त योजन9 के िलए कत =य पर =यतीत " अविध मानी जाती है। 6. From perusal of the punishment order dated 26.07.2017, it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority, while 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. 7. The relevant part of appeal rejection order dated 09.10.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by Appellate Authority reads as under:- "(5) , अपीलाथ D +ारा तुत अपील न ती म E संल Fन द तावेज9 का 3.10.2017 अवलोकन कया गयाः अपीलािथ या को दनांक को सम 2 25.4.2017 म E सुना गया। दनांक क < रा ( को सूता ीमती ममता प H हेमिसंह जाटव आई उसे वाड म E भत D न करते िच कसक को हुए न दखाकर सीधे कमलाराजा िच कसालय म E जाने के िलये कह दया जसके कारण सूता क < जला िच कसालय प >रसर म E ह $ पेड़ के नीचे डलेवर$ हो गई और नवजात क < भी मृ यु हो गई। इस कार अपीलाथ D +ारा अपने दािय व का सह $ ढंग से िनवह न नह $ं कया गया। इस तरह के इमरज Eसी के करण आने पर अपीलाथ D के रा (कालीन 7यूट$ पर होने के कारण अपीलाथ D को चा हये था क वह सूता को भत D कराती और फर डॉ Oटर से पर $2ण कराती कBतु अपीलाथ D ने ऐसा नह $ं कया । आदेश माण है। कले Oटर का आदेश उिचत है। उसम E प >रवतन या िनर त करने के आधार नह $ं ह Q । " वचारोपरांत अपील िनर त क < जाती है। Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:27:10 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11528 4 WP-17480-2017 8. From perusal of the appellate order dated 09.10.2017, 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. 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: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:27:10 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11528 5 WP-17480-2017 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”. 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: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:27:10 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11528 6 WP-17480-2017 (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. In view of the above discussion and the circumstances of the case, I am left with no choice but to set aside the punishment order dated 26.07.2017 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Disciplinary Authority and order dated 09.10.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Appellate Authority. 14. Consequently, respondents are directed 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. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to take action against the petitioner. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. (ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT) JUDGE Abhi Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:27:10 AM</div>