Ramlakhan Singh Dhakar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33522
1 WP-45111-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
nd
ON THE 2 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 45111 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030302472026
RAMLAKHAN SINGH DHAKAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pratip Visoriya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G.K. Agarwal - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. That, order dated 30/09/2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by
respondent No.4 CEO Zila Panchayat Morena may kindly be
quashed.
2. That, Respondent no. 4 may kindly be directed to revoke the
suspension order dated 30.09.2026 passed by Respondent no. 4
CEO Zila Panchayat Morena.
3. That, any other relief, including the cost of the petition be
given.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
working as Panchayat Secretary and is presently posted at Gram Panchayat
Badhreta, Janpad Panchayat Kailaras, District Morena. Learned counsel for
the petitioner further submitted that a complaint containing more or less
similar allegations was made against the petitioner by respondent No. 6. An
inquiry was conducted, but no evidence was found against the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 11/4/2026
5:20:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33522
2 WP-45111-2026
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondents No. 6
and 7 again made a complaint, therefore, a show-cause notice dated
10.09.2026 (Annexure P-4) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner
submitted his reply to the said notice. However, without considering the facts
and grounds mentioned in the reply, the CEO, Zila Panchayat, Morena,
passed the impugned order dated 30.09.2026 (Annexure P-1), whereby the
petitioner was restrained from performing his duties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that till date, the
petitioner has not been found guilty in any inquiry conducted by the
respondents and has been given a clean chit by the Inquiry Committee. The
earlier inquiry report was also approved by the CEO, Zila Panchayat. It is
submitted that the petitioner has been restrained from performing his duties
by the impugned order on the basis of the same complaint. Learned counsel
for the petitioner further submitted that earlier fact-finding inquiry was also
concluded in favour of the petitioner, and a clean chit was given to him vide
order dated 21.10.2026 (Annexure P/7).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the CEO,
Zila Panchayat, has not considered the facts and grounds mentioned in the
petitioner's reply/explanation and has rejected the same by passing a non-
speaking and unreasoned order, merely stating that the reply is not
satisfactory. Learned counsel further submitted that the controversy involved
in the present case has already been considered by the Division Bench in
W.A. No. 2278/2025 (Ritu Vyas vs. State of M.P. and others), decided on
24.11.2025.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 11/4/2026
5:20:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33522
3 WP-45111-2026
5. However, without following the aforesaid procedure and without
considering the facts and grounds mentioned in the petitioner's reply, the
CEO, Zila Panchayat, has passed the impugned order. It is submitted that the
impugned order is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v/s Masood Ahmed Khan
and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the CEO,
Zila Panchayat, has not assigned any reason in the impugned order as to why
the petitioner's reply/explanation was found unsatisfactory. It is submitted
that the petitioner could have availed the remedy of appeal before the
Collector, if reasons had been assigned for rejecting his reply. Since no
reasons have been given in the impugned order, the petitioner has directly
approached this Court by filing the present petition.
7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned
order and opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. It is submitted that a
detailed and reasoned order has been passed after considering the petitioner's
reply/explanation and that the order dated 30.09.2026 has been rightly
passed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of
filing an appeal before Commissioner against the impugned order under Rule
15 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999 and further submitted that there is no need to pass a reasoned and
detailed order at the time of suspension and suspension is not a punishment
and petitioner has an opportunity to prove his case during departmental
enquiry.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 11/4/2026
5:20:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33522
4 WP-45111-2026
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Important part of order dated 30.09.2026 (Annexure P-1) is quoted
herein below:-
" /
उपरो के आधार पर काया लयीन प कमांक पंचा. को.
वदुओं
/2026/9340 , 10.9.2026 ,
िशका. मुरैना दनांक से !ी रामलखन धाकड पंचायत
, ,
सिचव %ाम पंचायत बधर 'टा जनपद पंचायत कैलारस को नो टस जार * कया
, ,
गया ,जसका जवाब संबंिधत के -ारा .तुत कया गया ,जसका अवलोकन कए
जाने पर जवाब के साथ कोई ठोस सा 4य .तुत नह *ं कये जाने पर .तुत जवाब
कसी भी कार से संतोषजनक एवं समाधानकारक नह *ं पाया गया है। उ
िशकायत म ' उ सिचव थम 9:या दोषी है।
,
!ी रामलखन धाकड पंचायत सिचव का उ कृ <य उनके पद *यदािय<व= के ित
0 0 -
सजग न रहकर म पंचायत सेवा आचरण िनयम १९९८ िनयम ३ के ावधान=
,
के ितकूल होने से घोर लापरवाह * उदासीनता एवं उद Eडता तथा वFीय
अिनयिमतता को दिशत करता है।
, , ,
अतः !ी रामलखन धाकड पंचायत सिचव %ाम पंचायत बधर 'टा जनपद
,
पंचायत कैलारस ,जला मुरैना को करण म ' थम 9HIया दोषी पाये जाने से
0 0 -4
म पंचायत सेवा अिधिनयम १९९९ िनयम के तहत त <काल भाव से
िनलं बत कया जाता है िनलंबन अविध म ' इनका मु Kयालय जनपद पंचायत
कैलारस रहेगा तथा िनयमानुसार जीवन िनवा ह भ Fा क L पा ता होगी।
"
उ आदेश त <काल भाव से लागू होगा ।
10. From perusal of the impugned order issued by the Disciplinary
Authority dated 30.09.2026, it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority while
passing such order upon the petitioner, is exercising quasi judicial power and
even the quasi judicial order must be a speaking order. The Disciplinary
Authority must apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances and
record valid and justifiable reason and all grounds in support of its
conclusion.
11. On perusal of the impugned order, it does not appear to be a
speaking one.
12. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 11/4/2026
5:20:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33522
5 WP-45111-2026
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.
13. 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.
14. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 11/4/2026
5:20:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33522
6 WP-45111-2026
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” 31.
15. 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.
(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”.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 11/4/2026
5:20:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33522
7 WP-45111-2026
16. The CEO, Zila Panchayat, has passed a non-speaking and
unreasoned order. The absence of reasons in the impugned order cannot be
cured by assigning reasons at the appellate stage. Since the CEO, Zila
Panchayat, has not disclosed the reasons for passing the impugned order
dated 30.09.2026, the petitioner is unable to effectively challenge the same
before the appellate authority. Therefore, the contention of learned
Government Advocate that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing
an appeal is not sustainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Oryx
Fisheries Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors; (2010) 13 SCC 427 has held as
under:-
"41. In M/s Kranti Associates (supra), this Court after considering
various judgments formulated certain principles in para 51 of the
judgment which are set out below
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: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 11/4/2026
5:20:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33522
8 WP-45111-2026
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".
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 11/4/2026
5:20:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33522
9 WP-45111-2026
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."
17. In view of the above discussions and the facts and circumstances
of the case, I am left with no choice but to set aside impugned order dated
30.09.2026 (Annexure P/1). Accordingly, the same is set aside.
18. The petitioner is directed to submit a detailed representation/reply
to the show-cause notice dated 10.09.2026, along with a copy of earlier
inquiry report, before the CEO, Zila Panchayat, within ten days from today.
Thereafter, the CEO, Zila Panchayat, shall pass a detailed, reasoned and
speaking order, in accordance with law, after granting personal opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner as well as the complainant, within two months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The CEO, Zila
Panchayat, shall also consider the earlier inquiry report while passing the
order.
19. However, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the case.
20. With aforesaid observations and directions, present Writ Petition is
hereby disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Abhi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 11/4/2026
5:20:43 PM