Kalyan Chandra Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66006
1 WP-6774-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
th
ON THE 25 OF AUGUST, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6774 of 2019
KALYAN CHANDRA PANDEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.K. Tripathi - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri T.R. Pillai - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :
(i). to call for entire relevant record.
(ii). to expunge the effect of adverse remark and quash
the disciplinary proceeding, if any initiated in the light
of impugned award 04.02.2019 (annexure p/1).
(iii). to restrain the authority to take any coercive step
against the petitioners.
(iv). to pass such any other order as deem fit under the
facts and circumstances of the case.
(v). Any other relief together cost of the petition
which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper under the
facts and circumstances of this case may also be
awarded in favour of the petitioner.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioner no.1 was a Head Constable, who was working as an Investigating
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
14:37:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66006
2 WP-6774-2019
Officer in an accident case. The Claims Tribunal, while adjudicating the

claim case, has observed that the applicant therein, in collusion with the
present petitioners, had prepared certain documents to get the benefit of the
claim case and, accordingly, directed the Superintendent of Police, Rewa, to
initiate a departmental enquiry and punish the petitioners. It is submitted that
such observation and the remarks made by the learned Claims Tribunal are
beyond its jurisdiction in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of A.M. Mathur Vs. Pramod Kumar Gupta, reported
in 1990 (2) SCC 533, which has subsequently been relied upon by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K.P. Singh Vs. State of M.P. ,
reported in 2005 (2) MPHT 423, and a similar view has been taken by the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Dwivedi Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 4546 of 2010, dated 04.05.2011. It is submitted
that any such observation, without affording any opportunity of hearing to
the person against whom such observation is made, is not sustainable in the
eyes of law and, on the basis of such observation, the disciplinary authority
is under an obligation to punish the person without affording any opportunity
of hearing. Therefore, such observation and remarks deserve to be expunged.
3 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is not the
direction which has been given to the authority to initiate departmental
enquiry and punish the petitioner no.1, who was found to be involved in the
preparation of documents, but, in fact, it is the check and balance which has
to be done by the adjudicating Court while giving the finding that such
documents were prepared by the petitioners to reap the benefit. However, it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
14:37:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66006
3 WP-6774-2019
is also submitted that the disciplinary authority is always at liberty and has

the powers under the rules to initiate proceedings under service
jurisprudence, if the delinquent employee is found to be involved in
misconduct and to supervise the investigation. Therefore, the disciplinary
authority independently can also very well go into the misconduct of the
petitioner no.1 under the service rules. Therefore, such observation is not
directory; in fact, it is recommendatory, and learned counsel for the
respondents prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Admittedly the petitioner no.1 was involved in the investigation of the
accident claim case, in which the observation was made by the learned
Tribunal. It is opined and observed by the learned Tribunal that the
petitioners in collusion with the applicant therein had prepared certain
documents just to reap the benefit of accident in a accident claim case.
However, it is also observed and directed by the learned Tribunal to initiate
the Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner no.1 and if found guilty be
punished. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.M.Mathur (supra) has
held as under :-
"8. The appellant's complaint before us
is that he had no opportunity to meet the
allegations in the review petition, much less
as against averments in the subsequent
application dated January 25, 1989. He made
it clear to the High Court on October 6, 1988
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
14:37:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66006
4 WP-6774-2019
and also on October 29, 1988 that he entered

appearance pursuant to service of a copy of
the review petition as per the High Court
Rules, on the Advocate General's office. He
has not entered appearance as such on behalf
of the State or other respondents. He has,
further, made it clear that there was no
ground for review and it deserved to be
dismissed and so he did not wish to enter
appearance at that stage before the admission
of the review petition. The appellant appears
to be correct in these statements and they are
found recorded in the court proceedings dated
October 6, 1988.
9. It may be noted that C.P. Sen, J.
dismissed the review petition on the ground
of maintainability, limitation and locus standi
of the petitioner. Thereafter the application
was filed to pass strictures against the
appellant in the light of the Vidhan Sabha
proceedings. B.M. Lal, J. seems to have
acceded to that request. No doubt each judge
is independent to form an opinion of his own
in deciding cases or in any phase of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
14:37:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66006
5 WP-6774-2019
decisional function. But the facts of the

present case against the background of the
views expressed by this Court apropos to the
earlier strictures against the government,
should have warned B.M. Lal, J. no matter
how clear he was in his mind, not to criticise
the appellant. The avoidance of even the
appearances of bitterness, so important in a
judge, required him not to cast aspersions on
the professional conduct of the appellant.
13. Judicial restraint and discipline are
as necessary to the orderly administration of
justice as they are to the effectiveness of the
army. The duty of restraint, this humility of
function should be constant theme of our
judges. This quality in decision making is as
much necessary for judges to command
respect as to protect the independence of the
judiciary. Judicial restraint in this regard
might better be called judicial respect, that is,
respect by the judiciary. Respect to those
who come before the court as well to other
co-ordinate branches of the State, the
executive and the legislature. There must be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
14:37:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66006
6 WP-6774-2019
mutual respect. When these qualities fail or

when litigants and public believe that the
judge has failed in these qualities, it will be
neither good for the judge nor for the judicial
process.
15. Learned Judge having held that the
High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain
the review petition ought not to have
commented on the professional conduct of
the appellant and that too without an
opportunity for him. We regret to note that
the observations made and aspersions cast on
the professional conduct of the appellant are
not only without jurisdiction, but also they
are wholly and utterly unjustified and
unwarranted."
6. From above exposition of law, it is found that though aforesaid case was
in respect of remarks made by the High Court against the lawyer and finding
it extraneous, the Court has found that without affording any opportunity of
hearing, such remarks could not have been made by the High Court. In the
case of K.P.Singh Kushwaha (supra), this Court while dealing with the
similar set of facts, wherein remarks have been made by the learned trial
Judge, against Investigating Officer has observed as under :-
"13. It would be pertinent to mention here
that even if the Trial Court would have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
14:37:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66006
7 WP-6774-2019
passed the adverse remarks against the
applicant following the norms fixed by the
Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad
Naiem (supra) has no jurisdiction to direct
the authority for initiation of Departmental
Enquiry and to punish the applicant. At the
most, the learned Trial Court, after passing
the adverse remarks could have directed the
superior authority to take necessary action in
accordance with law.
14. The Criminal Courts have full power and
authority to pass adverse remarks against the
Investigating Agency and witnesses and also
has power for issuing direction to the
concerned authority to take necessary action
in accordance with law, but while doing so,
the Criminal Courts are required to follow the
three norms as laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of Mohammad Naiem
(supra). The adverse remarks should be
passed against the Investigating Agency with
a view to point out their inherent illegality
and lapses in investigation which give benefit
to the guilty person, so that they may improve
in future and their superior authority may also
know about the way and working of
subordinates and they may also provide them
proper facility and guidance for proper and
effective investigation in accordance with
law so that the guilty person may not escape
from the eye of law.
15. As a result of the foregoing discussion,
this petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
14:37:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66006
8 WP-6774-2019
CriminalProcedure is allowed and the adverse
remarks passed by the Trial Court against the
applicant inParas 32, 33 and 34 of the
judgment are expunged and the direction for
holding DepartmentalEnquiry against the
applicant and to punish him, is hereby set
aside."

Resultantly, expunged the remarks made in the judgment of the trial
Court and set-aside the direction issued for holding Departmental Enquiry
against the petitioner therein.
7. When the facts of the present case have been tested on the anvil of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.M. Mathur
(supra), it is found that though the learned Tribunal has made certain
observations in regard to preparation of documents in accident case to give
the benefit to the applicant therein by the present petitioner and directed the
authority to initiate departmental enquiry and punish the applicant. This
Court relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of A.M.Mathur (supra) and following the orders passed by this Court in
K.P.Singh Kushwaha (supra) and Sanjay Dwividi (supra) to the extent of the
observations made by the learned Tribunal allow this petition, the
observations made and direction issued by the learned Tribunal are expunged
in the light of the observations made by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in paragraphs 13 and 14 in the case K.P.Singh Kushwaha (supra). The
disciplinary authority is always having the supervisory role to supervise the
investigation as well as to see whether the delinquent has committed any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
14:37:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:66006
9 WP-6774-2019
misconduct under the service rules and if it is found proved then necessary

action always follow.
8. With the aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
rk.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 02-09-2026
14:37:54