Satish Chandra Saxena vs Md Madhya Pradesh Kchetra Viduyat Vitran Co. Ltd. Thr.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33296
1 WP. No. 3831 of 2017
THE IN HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 29 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3831 of 2017
CNR No.: MPHC030149022017
SATISH CHANDRA SAXENA
Versus
MD MADHYA PRADESH KCHETRA VIDUYAT VITRAN CO. LTD. THR.
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Narottam Sharma – Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking following relief (s):-
“1 That, order vide annexure P1 passed against petitioner for of
Rs.1,34,375/-by respondents may kindly be quashed and if any
amount recovered during pendency of petition may kindly be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
7:02:34 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33296
2 WP. No. 3831 of 2017
refunded. And also orders vide annexure P-2, P-3 may kindly be
quash.
2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly be
allowed.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as
a Junior Engineer in Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company
Ltd. and is presently posted at Raghogarh, District Guna. He has been performing
his duties sincerely and following the instructions issued by the respondents. It is
submitted that on 08.12.2006, a scheme was introduced for providing
transformers to farmers. Under this scheme, the work was to be carried out by
Class-A contractors after the farmers deposited the required amount. After the
work was completed as per the prescribed standards, the transformer was to be
connected to the 11 KV line and electricity billing was to start for the consumers.
The respondents had also issued circulars prescribing the standards for the work
and the action to be taken if the work was not completed properly. Learned
counsel further submits that the petitioner connected the transformers to the 11
KV line and started electricity billing after the contractors completed the work as
per the prescribed standards. If any defect was found in the work, the matter was
reported to the higher authorities. It is further submitted that the higher
authorities were responsible for taking appropriate action against the contractors
concerned. It is further submitted that the respondents issued a notice dated
06.11.2009 to the petitioner when he was posted at Rampur, District Guna. The
notice alleged that he had failed to start billing for certain consumers despite the
sanctioned estimates, causing financial loss to the Company. The respondents
proposed recovery of ₹20,43,210 from his salary along with stoppage of two
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
7:02:34 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33296
3 WP. No. 3831 of 2017
annual increments. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner submitted his
reply to the notice and requested the respondents to provide the relevant
documents and sufficient time to explain his case. However, the necessary
documents were not supplied to him. The petitioner was also not given a proper
opportunity to present his case. It is further submitted that the respondents passed
an order imposing recovery of ₹6,19,802 upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved,
the petitioner filed W.P. No. 4328/2011 before this Court. Thereafter, the
respondents passed a further order dated 01.11.2011. The petitioner again
approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 361/2012. According to the petitioner,
despite the directions of this Court to provide an opportunity of hearing, the
respondents did not properly examine the records, supply the necessary
documents or consider his reply. Ultimately, the respondents passed the
impugned order dated 24.05.2017, directing recovery of ₹1,34,375 from the
petitioner's salary in twelve instalments. It is further submitted that the
respondents did not conduct a proper departmental inquiry before imposing the
recovery. Neither proper charge-sheet was issued nor the petitioner was supplied
with the necessary documents. The respondents also failed to consider the
relevant records, the payments made by the consumers and the certificate
regarding recovery of the amount. It is further submitted that the respondents did
not properly examine whether any actual loss had been caused to the Company
due to the petitioner's actions. It is also submitted that petitioner was not
responsible for the alleged loss because the work was to be completed by the
contractors. The petitioner contends that the respondents wrongly held him
responsible for the alleged defects and financial loss without properly examining
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
7:02:34 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33296
4 WP. No. 3831 of 2017
the facts and records. The recovery orders were passed without following the
prescribed procedure and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have acted
arbitrarily and have not properly considered the explanation of petitioner. It is
further submitted that a similar controversy has already been decided by this
Court vide order dated 23.03.2026 passed in W.P. No.5188/2017 (Shrimohan
Sharma v. CMD, Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd.
and Others). The State Government preferred a writ appeal against the said order,
being W.A. No.2044/2026, which was also dismissed. Therefore, learned counsel
for the petitioner prays that the impugned order dated 24.05.2017 and the earlier
orders dated 01.11.2011 and 28.05.2011 may be quashed and he further prays
that any amount already recovered from the petitioner during the pendency of the
petition, the same may be refunded.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that the petitioner has
challenged the orders dated 28.05.2011, 01.11.2011 and 24.05.2017, whereby
recovery was ordered against him. It is submitted that the original order dated
28.05.2011 directed recovery of ₹6,19,802 from the petitioner. After the said
order was set aside by this Court with liberty to pass a fresh order after
conducting an inquiry, a fresh order dated 01.11.2011 was passed after
conducting a departmental inquiry. It is further submitted that the petitioner
challenged the order dated 01.11.2011 by filing W.P. No. 361/2012. This Court,
vide order dated 16.02.2016, directed the appellate authority to decide the
petitioner's appeal. Thereafter, the appellate authority constituted a three-member
fact-finding committee to examine the matter. The committee gave the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
7:02:34 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33296
5 WP. No. 3831 of 2017
an opportunity of hearing and submitted its report. It is further submitted that the
committee examined the amounts recovered from the consumers and found that
an amount of ₹1,34,375 had not been recovered from them. Accordingly, the
appellate authority directed recovery of the said amount from the salary of
petitioner. The respondents contend that the amount already recovered from the
consumers was taken into account and the recovery was reduced accordingly.
Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that under the Own Your
Transformer (OYT) Scheme, the petitioner, being the Junior Engineer in charge
of the Distribution Centre, was responsible for ensuring the installation of
metering equipment and starting electricity billing within the prescribed time.
However, the consumers started using electricity without their billing having
commenced, resulting in financial loss to the Company. It is further submitted
that issuing work orders to contractors was not sufficient, as the petitioner was
also required to ensure that the metering equipment was installed and billing was
started within the prescribed period. Learned counsel further submits that the
departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the petitioner was
given a proper opportunity to present his case. It is also submitted that the
petitioner had himself given a certificate stating that he was satisfied with the
inquiry proceedings. Therefore, he cannot now claim that he was not given an
opportunity of hearing. It is contended that the impugned orders were passed by
the competent authority after considering the relevant facts and records. It is
further submitted that no illegality or procedural error has been shown in the
impugned orders that would justify interference by this Court under Article 226
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
7:02:34 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33296
6 WP. No. 3831 of 2017
of the Constitution of India. On these grounds, learned counsel for the
respondents supports the impugned orders and prays that the writ petition may be
dismissed with costs.
4. Heard learned counsel or the parties and perused the record.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is working as a Junior
Engineer in Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. and
is presently posted at Raghogarh, District Guna. He has been performing his
duties in accordance with the instructions issued by the respondents. The record
further reveals that on 08.12.2006, a scheme was introduced for providing
transformers to farmers. Under the said scheme, the work was to be executed by
Class-A contractors after the farmers deposited the required amount. After
completion of the work as per the prescribed standards, the transformers were to
be connected to the 11 KV line and electricity billing was to be started. The
respondents had also issued circulars prescribing the standards for execution of
the work and the action to be taken in case any defect was found. It is evident
from the record that the petitioner connected the transformers to the 11 KV line
and started electricity billing after the contractors completed the work as per the
prescribed standards. In case any defect was noticed, the same was reported to
the higher authorities. The responsibility for taking appropriate action against the
concerned contractors rested with the higher authorities. The record further
indicates that a notice dated 06.11.2009 was issued to the petitioner when he was
posted at Rampur, District Guna. By the said notice, it was alleged that despite
sanction of estimates, the petitioner had failed to start electricity billing in respect
of certain consumers, thereby causing financial loss to the Company.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
7:02:34 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33296
7 WP. No. 3831 of 2017
Accordingly, the respondents proposed recovery of ₹20,43,210/- from his salary
along with stoppage of two annual increments. It is also apparent from the record
that the petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid notice and requested the
respondents to supply the relevant documents and grant him sufficient time to
explain his case. However, the necessary documents were not supplied to him,
nor was he afforded a proper opportunity to defend himself. Thereafter, the
respondents passed an order imposing recovery of ₹6,19,802 upon the petitioner.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.
No.4328/2011. Subsequently, the respondents passed another order dated
01.11.2011, which was again challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.
No.361/2012. It further emerges from the record that despite the directions issued
by this Court to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondents
did not properly examine the relevant records, supply the necessary documents or
consider the reply submitted by the petitioner. Ultimately, the respondents passed
the impugned order dated 24.05.2017, whereby recovery of ₹1,34,375 was
directed to be made from the petitioner's salary in twelve instalments. A perusal
of the impugned order and the documents available on record also indicates that
no proper departmental inquiry was conducted before imposing the aforesaid
recovery. No proper charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, nor were the
relevant documents supplied to him. The respondents also failed to properly
examine the relevant records, payments deposited by the consumers and the
certificate relating to recovery of the amount. It is further apparent that the
respondents did not properly determine whether any actual financial loss had
been caused to the Company due to any act or omission on the part of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
7:02:34 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33296
8 WP. No. 3831 of 2017
petitioner. The work of installation of transformers was to be executed by the
contractors, whereas the petitioner was required to connect the transformers to
the 11 KV line after completion of the work as per the prescribed standards. In
these circumstances, the responsibility of the petitioner for the alleged defects or
financial loss required proper examination by the competent authority. Thus, the
petitioner's grievance is that he has been held responsible for the alleged financial
loss without proper examination of the facts, relevant records and his
explanation. The impugned recovery order has been passed without following the
prescribed procedure and without affording him a reasonable opportunity of
hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
6. The relevant part of the order dated 24.05.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by
respondent No.2 is quoted below for ready reference and convinience:
vkSj tSlkfd xfBr dh xbZ rhu lnL;h; lfefr }kjk viuh fjiksVZ
dekad 6765 fnukad 23-12-2016 ds ek/;e ls çLrqr dhbZ ftlds vuqlkj Jh
lrh'k pan lDlsuk dks desVh }kjk viuk i{k j[kus gsrq iw.kZ eksdk fn;k x;k ftu
dusD'kuksa ij jkf'k 'ks"k gS fooj.k fuEu çdkj gS%&
Ø
-
dusD'ku Ø- miHkksDrk dk
uke
irk gk-
ik-
fudkyh jkf'k tek jkf'k 'ks"k
1 91&94&72461 Jh iwju flag
iq= ckcw yky
fiifj;k 10 29645 & 29645
rgkiqj 22 6390 & 6390
2 91&94&72763 Jh ykyrk
izlkn iq=
dksey
3 99 & 002 & 6551 ckcwflag iq=
guqer flag
D;kiqj 5 22680 & 22680
4 99 & 994 & 73143 lkxj gqlsuiqj 21 58200 28000 30200
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
7:02:34 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33296
9 WP. No. 3831 of 2017
flag@v[k;
flag
5 99 & 02 & 73313 gYyw@egkjkt
flag
lky; 5 6300 3200 3100
6 99 & 02 & 74020 jktsUnz flag ijkljh 25 34800 & 34800
7 ykykjke
@Hkjr flag
tLlh 5 7560 & 7560
;ksx 165575 31200 134375
bl çdkj Jh lDlsuk ds fo:) vf/kjksfir dh xbZ jkf'k :i;s 439214@& esa ls
muds }kjk 7 dusD'kuksa dh jkf'k 165575 fudkyh xbZ ftlesa ls ek= 31200@&
dh jkf'k tek djokbZ xbZ gSA 'ks"k jkf'k 134375@& :i;s olwyh tkuk 'ks"k gS tks
fd Jh lDlsuk ls olwyh tkuk gSA
vr% Jh lrh'k pan lDlsuk] dfu"B ;a=h ¼lgk;d çca/kd½ ds osru ls :i;s
134375@& dh olwyh 12 leku ekfld fd'rksa ls olwy fd, tkus dk vkns'k
ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA”
7. From perusal of the order dated 24.05.2017, it is clear that the 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
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 order, it does not appear to be a speaking one.
8. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
7:02:34 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33296
10 WP. No. 3831 of 2017
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.
9. 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.
10. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
7:02:34 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33296
11 WP. No. 3831 of 2017
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”.
11. 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
reported 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 subparagraphs
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
decision making 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.
(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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
7:02:34 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33296
12 WP. No. 3831 of 2017
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”.
12. Similar controversy has already been decided by this Court vide order
dated 23.03.2026 passed in W.P. No.5188/2017 (Shrimohan Sharma v. CMD,
Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. and Others). The
State Government preferred a writ appeal against the said order, being W.A.
No.2044/2026, which was also dismissed. The relevant portion of the of the order
of said writ appeal is quoted below:
10. However, counsel for appellant could not point out any statutory
provision to the effect that appellate Authority had jurisdiction to
delegate its appellate jurisdiction. It is always expected that if an
appeal is filed, then the appellate Authority must apply its mind to the
facts and circumstances of the case and must decide all the grounds
raised by the appellant. The learned Single Judge has reproduced the
order of appellate Authority in the order under challenge. From plain
reading of said order, it is clear that appellate Authority had blindly
accepted the recommendation made by the Committee constituted by
him and passed the impugned order dated 09.05.2011. It is clear from
the order dated 09.05.2011 that appellate Authority did not apply its
mind at all.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Trustees v.
Indore Composite (P) Ltd. , reported in, (2018) 8 SCC 443 has held
as under :
"13 [Ed.: Para 13 corrected vide Official Corrigendum
No. F-3/Ed.B.J./54/2018 dated 11-10-2018.] . Indeed, in
the absence of any application of judicial mind to the
factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal and
without there being any discussion, appreciation,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
7:02:34 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33296
13 WP. No. 3831 of 2017
reasoning and categorical findings on the issues and why
the findings impugned in the writ petition deserve to be
upheld or reversed, while dealing with the arguments of
the parties in the light of legal principles applicable to the
case, it is difficult for this Court to sustain such order of
the Division Bench. The only expression used by the
Division Bench in disposing of the writ petition is “on
due consideration”. It is not clear to us as to what was
that due consideration which persuaded the Division
Bench to dispose of the writ petition because we find that
in the earlier paragraphs only facts are set out.
14. Time and again, this Court has emphasised on the
courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case
which must contain the narration of the bare facts of the
case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case,
the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles
applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in
support of the findings on all the issues arising in the
case and urged by the learned counsel for the parties in
support of its conclusion. It is really unfortunate that the
Division Bench failed to keep in mind these principles
while disposing of the writ petition. Such order, in our
view, has undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties
because it deprived them to know the reasons as to why
one party has won and other has lost. We can never
countenance the manner in which such order was passed
by the High Court which has compelled us to remand the
matter to the High Court for deciding the writ petition
afresh on merits.
15. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we allow the
appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case
to the Division Bench of the High Court for deciding the
writ petition afresh on merits in accordance with law
keeping in view our observations made supra. We,
however, make it clear that we have refrained from
making any observation on merits of the controversy
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
7:02:34 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33296
14 WP. No. 3831 of 2017
having formed an opinion to remand the case to the High
Court for the reasons mentioned above. The High Court
would, therefore, decide the writ petition, uninfluenced
by any of our observations, strictly in accordance with
law."
12. Reasons are the heat-beat of an order and only from the reasons, it
can be deciphered whether appellate Authority had applied its mind or
not.
13. It is the second round of litigation . Earlier, this Court vide order dated
16.02.2016 passed in WP. No.361/2012 had directed the respondents in the
following manner:-
“7. In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the appellate
authority has not applied its mind and merely relied upon the
recommendation which was supposed to be made by scrutiny by such
senior officers. The order impugned did not reflect that a detailed
speaking order has been passed after considering the grounds raised
by the petitioners in their respective petitions. However, it is liable be
quashed.
8. Accordingly, all the aforesaid writ petitions are hereby allowed.
The order passed by the appellate authority is hereby set-aside,
maintaining the earlier order passed in batch of petition. It is further
directed to the appellate authority to comply those directions and
pass a fresh detailed speaking order within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
9. With the aforesaid, the writ petitions Nos.Nos.2729/2010,
5450/2010, 631/2011, 819/2011, 851/2011, 6777/2011, 361/2012 are
hereby allowed and disposed of accordingly.
10. So far as Writ Petition Nos.2522/2011, 3854/2011 & 6955/2011
are concerned, in these three cases, the petitioners have came up for
the first time before this court. However, petitioners are at liberty to
prefer an appeal as directed in the batch of petitions earlier in Vijay
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
7:02:34 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33296
15 WP. No. 3831 of 2017
Salkhade (supra) within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order and on filing such appeal, the
appellate authority shall comply with the direction as issued in the
earlier round of litigation in Vijay Salkhade (supra) and the
directions issued by this court herein-above.
11. With the aforesaid, writ petitions No.2522/2011, 3854/2011 &
6955/2011 are also allowed and disposed of. ”
14. Despite the specific directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of
litigation, the appellate authority, while passing the impugned order dated
24.05.2017, failed to pass a reasoned and speaking order. A perusal of the
impugned order shows that the appellate authority has merely relied upon the
report of the three-member fact-finding committee and directed recovery of
₹1,34,375 from the petitioner in twelve equal monthly instalments. The appellate
authority has not discussed the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal or
considered his explanation and the relevant documents. It has also not recorded
any specific finding as to how the petitioner was responsible for the alleged non-
recovery of the amount from the concerned consumers. The respondents have
also failed to place the report of the three-member committee before this Court to
demonstrate that the petitioner's objections and the relevant records were
properly examined. Furthermore, the appellate authority has not examined
whether the alleged financial loss was actually caused due to any negligence or
failure on the part of the petitioner. Since the order of recovery has serious civil
consequences for the petitioner, the appellate authority was required to consider
all relevant facts and grounds and record proper reasons before passing such an
order. However, the impugned order does not reflect any independent application
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
7:02:34 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33296
16 WP. No. 3831 of 2017
of mind by the authority. Thus, the directions issued by this Court in the earlier
round of litigation have not been properly complied with. The impugned order,
therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
15. In view of the above discussion and the circumstances of the case, I am left
with no choice but to set aside the orders dated 24.5.2017 (Annexure P/1), dated
1.11.2011 (Annexure P/2) and dated 28.5.2011 (Annexure P/3) passed by the
concerned Authority and accordingly I do so.
16. Ex. consequenti , respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits
to petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order and as petitioner has already retired, therefore, no liberty is
granted to the respondents to take action against him. Respondents are directed
to pay the recovery amount of Rs..1,34,375/- (if already recovered) to petitioner.
17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands
allowed and disposed of .
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
Ahmad
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/3/2026
7:02:34 PM