Chhotkau Singh Gond vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53033
1 WP-12089-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
th
ON THE 16 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 12089 of 2016
CHHOTKAU SINGH GOND
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Kesharwani -G.A. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking following relief:-
(i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the proceedings of departmental enquiry initiated
by the respondent no. 2 vide (Anx P-5) in respect of same set
of allegation for which petitioner has already been punished
with minor penalty of Censure.
(ii) To grant any other relief deemed fit in the
circumstance of present case.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a show cause
notice was issued against the petitioner as to why penal action should not be
initiated against him for issuing a character certificate in favour of one Daddu @
Raghunandan, S/o Ram Lakhan, against whom offences under Sections 147, 148,
149, 307, 323, 294 and 508 of IPC were registered at Crime No. 73/2007 by the
petitioner. It is submitted that despite the registration of the offence and the FIR,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LALIT SINGH
RANA
Signing time: 7/28/2026
11:36:55 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53033
2 WP-12089-2016
the petitioner had issued a character certificate. The petitioner submitted his reply

stating that by mistake, such certificate was issued because the offence was
registered in the name of Raghunandan Yadav, whereas the character certificate
was sought in the name of Daddu @ Raghunandan. The Superintendent of Police,
District Sidhi, on consideration of the said reply, closed the show cause notice
with a warning to the petitioner that such a mistake should not be repeated in
future.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that a charge-sheet dated dated 04.08.2015
(Annexure P/5) was issued on the same allegation and charges. Therefore, as a
second charge-sheet on the same charges is not permissible under the law, the
same deserves to be quashed and the respondent authorities be directed not to
proceed further in the departmental inquiry. It is further submitted that now the
petitioner has already retired in the year 2020. Therefore, the charge-sheet be
quashed and the matter be dropped.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that earlier,
on a complaint being made against the petitioner, a show cause notice was issued.
The show cause notice dated 03.12.2012 (Annexure P/2) was issued and on
acceptance of the guilt by the petitioner that by mistake, he had issued such
certificate assuming that Daddu and Raghunandan are different persons, the said
show cause notice was closed with a warning to the petitioner that he shall not
commit such mistake and negligence in future vide order dated 13.03.2013
(Annexure P/4). It is further submitted that mere issuance of a warning does not
come within the definition of penalty as provided under Rule 10 of the M.P. Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to
as "the Rules of 1966 for the sake of brevity). It is further submitted that the
contents of the charge-sheet issued in the year 2015, though may be based on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LALIT SINGH
RANA
Signing time: 7/28/2026
11:36:55 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53033
3 WP-12089-2016
same allegation, but it contains different charges also that the petitioner had

issued a character certificate despite the fact that two offences were registered
against the said person, one at Crime No. 73/2007 and another through a private
complaint bearing No. 16/2008, and the said person had been benefited by
obtaining public employment on the post of Teacher Class-III. Therefore, the
principle of double jeopardy is not applicable in the matter in hand. The charge-
sheet was issued on 04.08.2015, whereas the incident is of 01.02.2011. Therefore,
the charge-sheet has also not been issued with an inordinate delay.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From a perusal of the first show cause notice dated 03.12.2012
(Annexure P/2), it is found that the petitioner was served with a show cause as to
why penal action should not be initiated against him on the basis of an inquiry
initiated on the complaint of one Radheshyam Tiwari that the petitioner, against
his duties and conditions of service, had shown negligence and indiscipline
behaviour by issuing a character certificate in the name of Daddu @
Raghunandan, against whom, despite having knowledge that an offence was
registered at Police Station Kusumi, i.e., in the same police station, the petitioner
had issued the said certificate. The petitioner submitted his reply vide Annexure
P/3, admitting the mistake on the ground that by mistake, treating that the offence
was registered against the Raghunandan, the character certificate was issued.
However, he could not ascertain that Daddu was the nickname of Raghunandan.
Considering the explanation tendered by the petitioner, the Superintendent of
Police, District Sidhi vide order dated 13.03.2013, closed the show cause notice
by issuing a warning against the petitioner that he shall not repeat such negligence
in future.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LALIT SINGH
RANA
Signing time: 7/28/2026
11:36:55 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53033
4 WP-12089-2016
7. From a perusal of the charge-sheet dated 04.08.2015, it is found that the

charge-sheet was issued, though on the same allegation, but with further
particulars that there were two offenses registered against the said person i.e.
Crime No. 73/2007 and private complaint No.16/2008. The petitioner had issued
the character certificate by affixing the seal of the Town Inspector and signing on
it as a Constable, without entering the said certificate in the character certificate
register maintained by the police station. For the said character certificate, an
offence was registered under Sections 420 and 471 of IPC at Crime No. 4/2014.
The petitioner was also implicated and made co-accused by adding Sections 467,
468 and 477-A of IPC and the charge-sheet has also been filed in the said
matter. During the course of arguments, learned Government Advocate has also
apprised this Court that in the said offence, the petitioner has also been convicted
vide judgment dated 27.10.2018 in ST No. 162/2014 passed by the Second
Additional Sessions Judge, District- Sidhi, whereby he has been awarded a
sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- under
Section 477-A of the IPC and three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section
468 read with Section 120 of the IPC with an additional fine of Rs. 500/-. The
petitioner has not disclosed the said fact during the course of arguments and has
pleaded lack of knowledge in respect of the punishment awarded by the competent
criminal court of law.
8. Be that as it may, as it is transpired from the documents that the
petitioner has already been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections
468, 467 and 471 of the IPC, therefore, in all fairness, the petitioner would be
subject to enquiry even with the aid of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1966. From a
perusal of the charge-sheet (Annexure P/5), it is found that the charges mentioned
in the charge-sheet are distinct from the allegations made in the show cause notice.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LALIT SINGH
RANA
Signing time: 7/28/2026
11:36:55 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53033
5 WP-12089-2016
The allegations in the charge sheet are elaborate and consist of other subsequent

factual matrix. Therefore, the allegation mentioned in the show cause notice and
the charge-sheet cannot be equated with each other. Otherwise also, the earlier
show cause notice was closed with a warning to the petitioner, which does not
constitute any punishment under the Rule 10 of the Rules of 1966. This Court, in
the case of Prakash Chandra Prasad Vs. State of MP and others reported in
2010(1) MPLJ has held that a warning is not a punishment as specified in Rule 10
of the Rules of 1966, which is reproduced hereunder:-
"11. It is well settled that warning is not a penalty specified
in Rule 10 of M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules 1966 and as such does not require the
adoption of a detailed enquiry procedure as contemplated
under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966. An opportunity was
given to the petitioner and there has been adequate
compliance with the principle of natural justice.
12. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that
warning to the petitioner to make endeavours to improve his
knowledge about law is not a punishment under the M. P.
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1966 and circular issued by the State Government from time
to time. The competent authority while considering the
punishment of warning considered the facts and
circumstances under which the warning has been given to the
petitioner and thereafter passed the impugned order which
does not constitute punishment and it will not come in the
way of the petitioner for his further promotion."
9. Therefore, this Court deems it apposite to deal with the question only to
the extent that the second charge-sheet is not on the same charges or allegations
which were levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice, as the show
cause notice was closed with a warning. Therefore, the petitioner was neither
exonerated nor punished as per the penalty provided in Rule 10 of the Rules of
1966. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the principle of double
jeopardy is not applicable in the case in hand.
10. In view of the above exposition of law, when analyzed from the facts of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LALIT SINGH
RANA
Signing time: 7/28/2026
11:36:55 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53033
6 WP-12089-2016
the case, it is demystified that the earlier show cause notice was not issued on the

same charges as issued against the petitioner in the subsequent charge-sheet,
coupled with the fact that the earlier show cause notice was closed with only a
warning, which does not constitute a penalty as envisaged under Rule 10 of the
Rules of 1966, therefore no ground is made out to quash the charge sheet dated
04.08.2015 (Anexure P/5) .
11. It is also transpired during course of arguments that petitioner has
already been punished for preparing said character certificate upon registration of
an FIR. Therefore, the petitioner may be punished also with the aid of Rule 19 of
the Rules of 1966 but as the matter is not before this Court, therefore no
comments are warranted.
12. With the aforesaid, the writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
L.R.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LALIT SINGH
RANA
Signing time: 7/28/2026
11:36:55 AM