Radheshyam Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25941
1 WP. No. 4399 of 2024
THE IN HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 25 OF AUGUST, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 4399 of 2024
RADHESHYAM GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
Appearance:
Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya – Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s): -
“(i) That, the impugned order dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure P/1) may
kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That, the impugned order dated 17.01.2024 (Annexure P/2) may
kindly be quashed and set aside.
(iii) That, the second charge-sheet issued to the petitioner and
consequential departmental enquiry followed thereupon, be held to
be vitiated in law and same be also quashed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/31/2026
7:11:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25941
2 WP. No. 4399 of 2024
(iv) That, the respondents be directed to henceforth release the retiral
dues of the petitioner with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
(v) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be granted.”
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that initially the charge-
sheet was issued and petitioner denied the charges. Thereafter, enquiry was
conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted its report to the Disciplinary
Authority. The Disciplinary Authority supplied the copy of enquiry report to
petitioner vide letter dated 17.06.2022 and asked explanation/reply from
petitioner. Petitioner submitted detailed reply/explanation on 09.09.2022
(Annexure P-12). It is submitted that various facts and grounds had been
mentioned in the explanation/reply but respondents did not consider them and
passed the impugned non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 26.10.2022
(Annexure P/1) by inflicting major punishment of dismissal from services upon
petitioner. Irked by the said order, petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate
authority, however, the appellate authority did also not consider that the
impugned punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is non-
speaking and unreasoned and ultimately rejected the appeal vide order dated
17.01.2024 (Annexure P/2) which is also non-speaking and unreasoned.
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 Authority had arrived to a
conclusion that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority had been passed
after due consideration and cannot be faulted with.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/31/2026
7:11:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25941
3 WP. No. 4399 of 2024
5. Relevant part of the impugned punishment order dated 26.10.2022
(Annexure P/1) passed by Disciplinary Authority reads as under:-
Jh /khjsUæ prqosZnh vij lapkyd yksd f'k{k.k ,oa foHkkxh; tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk
tkap çfrosnu fnukad 25-04-2022 dks çLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA
lapkyuky; ds i= Ø- LFkk&2@lh&lrZ@Q@fo-tk-@79@06&2024@970
fnukad 17-06-2022 }kjk Jh jk/ks';ke xqIrk dks tkap çfrosnu dh çfr layXu dj
tkap çfrosnu ds vuqlkj mu ij vf/kjksfir vkjksi çekf.kr ik;s tkus dk ys[k
djrs gq, 15 fnol ds Hkhrj mudk çfrokn pkgk x;k Jh xqIrk }kjk
çLrqr çfrokn fnukad 09-09-2022 çkIr gqvk tks ijh{k.k mijkar çfrokn
lek/kkudkjd ugha ik;k x;k A
tkap çfrosnu ds vuqlkj Jh xqIrk }kjk ftyk bdkbZ ds lnL;ksa }kjk fy, x,
fu.kZ; i'pkr ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa dks xqejkg dj ,oa fcuk l{ke vf/kdkfj;ksa dh
lgefr ds viuh bPNkuqlkj ,oa euekus <ax ls fnukad 29-01-05 dks dh xbZ
dk;Zokgh laca/kh çkslhfMax esa dbZ 'kkyk Hkouksa ds LFkku@ukeksa esa ifjorZu fd;k
tkuk] rFkk ,d ;kstuk ls nwljh ;kstuk esa 'kkyk Hkouksa ds ukeks@LFkkuksa esa
gsjkQsjh dh tkuk ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa dks xyr tkudkjh nsdj ,oa xqejkg djds
jkT; f'k{kk dsUæ Hkksiky ls fu/kkZfjr HkkSfrd ,oa foÙkh; y{; ls vf/kd ds Hkou
Loh—fr ctV ls vf/kd jkf'k O;; dj ?kksj vfu;ferrk ,oa 'kklu dh jkf'k dk
nq:i;ksx fd;k tkuk ,oa ek/;fed fo|ky; flxjbZ dks fuekZ.k dk;Z dh çFke
vifBr jkf'k 2-00 yk[k :i;s ,oa ek-fo- vjksnjh fuekZ.k dk;Z dh çFke jkf'k dk
dh jkf'k 2-00 yk[k dqy :i;s 4-00 yk[k dk xcu fd;k tkuk çekf.kr ik;k
x;kA
bl çdkj Jh xqIrk ij vf/kjksfir vkjksi Øekad 1]2]3 ,oa 4 iw.kZr% fla) gksrs gSA
vr% tkapdrkZ vf/kdkjh ds tkap çfrosnu ls lger gksrs gq, Jh jk/ks';ke xqIrk
rRdkyhu ftyk ifj;kstuk leUo;d ftyk f'k{kk dsUæ ';ksiqj orZeku esa
O;k[;krk ¼fuyafor½ dk;kZy; ftyk f'k{kk vf/kdkjh f'koiqjh dk mä —R; e-ç-
flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;e 1965 ds fu;e 3] 3¼d½ ds foijhr ik;s tkus ds
QyLo:i Jh jk/ks';ke xqIrk ij rRdky çHkko ls e-ç- flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k]
fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e 1966 ds fu;e 10 ¼9½ ds varxZr inP;qr fd;s tkus
dh 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir dh tkdj çdj.k lekIr fd;k tkrk gSA
6. From perusal of the punishment order dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure P-1), it
is clear that the Disciplinary Authority, while passing 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/31/2026
7:11:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25941
4 WP. No. 4399 of 2024
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 17.01.2024 (Annexure
P/2) passed by Appellate Authority reads as under:-
13½ vk;qä] yksd f'k{k.k ds n.Mkns'k fnukad 26-10-2022 ds }kjk lsok ls
inP;qr fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa Jh jk/ks';ke xqIrk }kjk bl foHkkx esa vihy çLrqr
dh xbZ gSA Jh xqIrk }kjk çLrqr vihy ij vk;qä yksd f'k{k.k dk vfHker pkgk
x;kA vk;qä yksd f'k{k.k ds }kjk vihy esa mYysf[kr rF;ksa dk lexz :ik ls
ijh{k.kksijkar ifjyf{kr gqvk fd Jh xqIrk }kjk viuh vihy esa ,slk dksbZ uohu
rF; dk mYys[k ugha fd;k gS ftlesa tkap esa dksbZ =qfV ifjyf{kr gks jgh
gksA ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd Jh jk/ks';ke xqIrk dks vijk/k Øekad
185@2016 }kjk&7 13 ¼1½ ch 13 ¼2½ ih-lh- ,DV 1988 ¼la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e
2018½ esa eku fo'ks"k U;k;ky; esa fu-v- ftyk f'koiqjh esa fnukad 10-02-2020 dks
pkyku çLrqr fd;k x;k ftldk fo'ks"k çdj.k Øekad 01@2020 gksus ls
lapkyuky; ds vkns'k fnukad 18-06-2020 }kjk fuyafcr fd;k x;k gSA fuyacu
dky esa lapkyuky; ds vkns'k fnukad 26-10-2022 }kjk lsok ls inP;qr fd;k
x;k gSA vk;qä yksd f'k{k.k }kjk n.Mkns'k fnukad 26-10-2022 dks ;Fkkor j[kus
dk vfHker fn;kA vk;qä yksd f'k{k.k }kjk Jh xqIrk }kjk vihy esa mYysf[kr
rF;ksa ds ijh{k.k mijkar lek/kkudkjd u gksus ls n.Mkns'k fnukad 26-10-2022
dks ;Fkkor j[krs gq, vihyh; vH;kosnu dks vekU; djus dk vfHker fn;k gSA
14½ çdj.k esa fnukad 19-07-2023 dks vihykFkhZ dh O;fäxr lquokbZ dh
xbZA vk;qä yksd f'k{k.k e/;çns'k Hkksiky }kjk fn;s x;s vfHker ,oa Jh
xqIrk }kjk vihy esa mYysf[kr rF;ksa ds lexz :i ls ijh{k.k ,oa
ifj'khyu ls ifjyf{kr gksrk gS fd Jh xqIrk }kjk çLrqr çfrokn
lek/kkudkjd ugha ik;k x;kA Jh xqIrk }kjk O;fäxr lquokbZ ds lkFk
Hkh uohu rF; çLrqr ugha fd;s x;s ftlds dkj.k muds fo:) çLrkfor
n.M ij iqu% fopkj fd;k tk lds aA
15½ mijksä of.kZr fLFkfr ds çdk'k esa Jh jk/ks';ke xqIrk iwoZ ftyk ifj;kstuk
leUo;d ftyk f'k{kk dsUæ ';ksiqj ,oa rRdkyhu çHkkjh çkpk;Z 'kkl mekfo djSjk
ftyk f'koiqjh e-ç- ds vihyh; vH;kosnu dks vekU; djrs gq, muds fo#)
vk;qä yksd f'k{k.k }kjk ikfjr n.Mkns'k fnukad 26-10-2022 }kjk lsok ls inP;qr
fd;s tkus laca/kh n.Mkns'k dks ;Fkkor j[ks dk ç'kkldh; fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/31/2026
7:11:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25941
5 WP. No. 4399 of 2024
vr% jkT; 'kklu ,rn }kjk Jh jk/ks';ke xqIrk iwoZ ftyk ifj;kstuk leUo;d
ftyk f'k{kk dsUæ ';ksiqj ,oa rRdkyhu çHkkjh çkpk;Z 'kkl mekfo djSjk ftyk
f'koiqjh e-ç- ds vihyh; vH;kosnu dks vekU; djrs gq, muds fo:) vk;qä
yksd f'k{k.k }kjk ikfjr n.Mkns'k fnukad 26-10-2022 }kjk lsok ls inP;qr fd;s
tkus laca/kh n.Mkns'k dks ;Fkkor j[krk gSA
e/;çns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls
rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj
8. From perusal of the appellate order dated 17.01.2024 (Annexure P-2), it is
clear that the Appellate Authority, while passing 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/31/2026
7:11:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25941
6 WP. No. 4399 of 2024
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/31/2026
7:11:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25941
7 WP. No. 4399 of 2024
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 :
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/31/2026
7:11:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25941
8 WP. No. 4399 of 2024
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".
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/31/2026
7:11:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25941
9 WP. No. 4399 of 2024
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".
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."
13. 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 26.10.2022
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/31/2026
7:11:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25941
10 WP. No. 4399 of 2024
(Annexure P/1) passed by the Disciplinary Authority and appeal rejection order
dated 17.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Appellate Authority and
accordingly I do so.
14. Considering the aforesaid, the matter is remanded to the Disciplinary
Authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order after taking into consideration
each and every fact and ground mentioned by petitioner in his reply/explanation
dated 09.09.2022 (Annexure P-12) and also the documents which have been
enclosed along with it, after extending him personal opportunity of being heard,
in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
15. 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: 8/31/2026
7:11:31 PM