Chandra Shekhar Solanki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20007
1 WA-2888-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
th
ON THE 7 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 2888 of 2025
CHANDRA SHEKHAR SOLANKI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Maheshwari - Advocate for appellant.
Shri S.S. Kushwaha - Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4/State.
Shri Arun Katare - Advocate for respondent No. 5.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
This writ appeal under Section 2 of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed
against the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.
No. 3049/2014.
2. It is submitted by counsel for appellant that respondent No. 5 had
filed a writ petition against an order of punishment passed in the
departmental enquiry. In the writ petition, appellant was also impleaded as
respondent No. 5. It was specifically pleaded by petitioner (respondent No. 5
herein) in the writ petition that appellant, who was respondent No. 5 in the
writ petition, wanted to grab the land of the wife of petitioner and made
various efforts and also threatened the petitioner to give the land to Shri
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 10-07-2026
05:50:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20007
2 WA-2888-2025
N.B.S. Rajpoot which was in the same survey number where the land of Shri

N.B.S. Rajpoot was already situated. Similarly, father of Shri N.B.S. Rajpoot
also threatened the petitioner. Out of malafide, departmental charge-sheet
was issued by appellant. Petitioner/Respondent No. 5 herein had also made a
complaint before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chambal Zone,
Morena, who enquired the matter and submitted his report that the action
taken by appellant against respondent No. 5 appears to be malafide and
revengeful.
3. Thus, in all, one of the ground for attacking the order of punishment
was that the entire action/charge-sheet was issued by appellant with a
malafide intention.
4. Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, has
observed as under:
"7. Admittedly, petitioner was not having the copy of enquiry report dated
28.10.2013 while he submitted reply before the Disciplinary Authority and
as per the enquiry report dated 28.10.2013 it is clear that entire action has
been initiated by respondent No.5 with mala fide intention. This Court has
already issued notice to respondent No.5 on 17.06.2014 and it has been
served upon respondent No.5 but no-one has appeared on behalf of
respondent No.5. Further, the appellate order is also non-speaking and
unreasoned.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case in toto,
instant petition is disposed of in the following manner:
(i) Impugned orders Annexure P-1 dated 12.11.2013 and Annexure
P-2 dated 26.04.2014 are set aside;
(ii) Petitioner is directed to submit a fresh reply/representation
before respondent No.4 within a period of 15 days from today;
(iii) In turn, respondent No.4 is directed to consider the
reply/representation afresh taking into consideration the enquiry
report dated 28.10.2013 and pass a reasoned and speaking order in
accordance with law within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order."
5. Challenging the observation made by learned Single Judge, it is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 10-07-2026
05:50:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20007
3 WA-2888-2025
admitted by counsel for appellant that the notice of petition was served on

the appellant, but in spite of repeated queries by this Court, counsel for
appellant did not point out any reason for not responding to the notice issued
by this Court. It is submitted that since respondent No. 5 had never prayed
for any action against appellant, therefore, learned Single Judge should not
have passed the strictures against him in paragraph 7 of the impugned order.
It is also submitted that even if any adverse inference is to be drawn against
the appellant on the basis of enquiry report dated 28.10.2013, then it is the
prerogative of the department to take cognizance of the same and take action
against the appellant. It is further submitted that the enquiry was done by
other authorities and he had merely initiated the departmental proceedings,
and therefore, it cannot be said that he was ever responsible for recording of
departmental findings against respondent No. 5. In ground B, it is mentioned
that on what basis the malice has been alleged against the appellant is not
known as it stands nugatory.
6. Heard learned counsel for appellant.
7. Undisputedly, appellant was impleaded as respondent No. 5 in Writ
Petition No. 3049/14. Paragraph 5.4 of the writ petition reads as under:
"5.4 That, the show cause notice dated 26.4.2012 was issued to the
petitioner vide Annexure P/7. The reply whereof was submitted by the
petitioner to the respondents vide Annexure P/8 dated 30.4.2012, but the
respondent no.5 was having malice against the petitioner and was annoyed
with the petitioner as the wife of the petitioner was in possession and
ownership of the land to which Shri N.B.S. Rajpoot the then Collector,
District Morena wanted that land and joining hands with respondent no.5,
who was then S.P. District Datia wanted to grab the land of the wife of the
petitioner have made various efforts and threatened the petitioner to give
the land to Shri N.B.S. Rajpoot, which was in the same survey number
where the land of Shri N.B.S. Rajpoot was already situated and the father
of Shri N.B.S. Rajpoot called the petitioner on his mobile twice or thrice
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 10-07-2026
05:50:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20007
4 WA-2888-2025
for handing over of the land owned and possessed by the wife of the
petitioner."

Thus, it is clear that the allegations of malice were made by pointing
out the reasons for the same.
8. Since respondent No. 5 had alleged malafide against the appellant,
therefore, he was impleaded as respondent No. 5. Why the appellant did not
respond to the notice of the writ petition which was duly received by him has
not been explained either by mentioning the same in the memo of appeal or
by submitting during the course of arguments. It is made clear that this Court
had repeatedly requested the counsel for appellant to disclose the reasons for
not responding to the notice of writ petition, but no reason was disclosed, and
every time, counsel for appellant was trying to argue on merits.
9. If any action is initiated with a malafide intention by the senior
officer, then it is always expected that the junior officers will succumb to the
pressure of the senior officer. At the relevant time, appellant was working as
Superintendent of Police and at present it was told that he is working as
Inspector General of Police. If the officers, who are subordinate to appellant,
have recorded a finding against respondent No. 5, then it cannot be said that
those findings are completely unbiased or independent. Furthermore, learned
Single Judge had already taken note of the adverse remark passed by the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chambal Zone, Morena in his report
dated 28.10.2013 in which it was mentioned that although respondent No. 5
was already saddled with the punishment of censure, but with an intention to
harass him, the departmental inquiry was initiated and it was held as under:
"
अतः उपरो ानुसार जांच से ी च शेखर सोलंक  पुिलस अधी क दितया ारा आर क के
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 10-07-2026
05:50:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20007
5 WA-2888-2025
"
!व#$ क  गई काय 'वाह) ितशोध क  भावना से ता,डत करना *दिश'त होता है।

Under these circumstances, burden was on the appellant to disprove
the allegations of malice, but he deliberately avoided to do the same and
made himself liable to face the adverse consequences.
10. However, in order to do complete justice, this Court gave an
option to the counsel for appellant that in case if appellant is ready to deposit
a substantial cost which would be payable to respondent No. 5, then this
Court is ready to remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge with
liberty to appellant to file his return to the writ petition.
11. After seeking instructions from appellant, it is submitted by
counsel for appellant that appellant is not intending to deposit any cost and
requested to decide the appeal on merits.
12. Since appellant has decided not to avail the opportunity which was
offered by this Court and even at the cost of his own career has decided not
to mend his ways by availing the opportunity of filing reply to the writ
petition, it is suffice to mention here that appellant was granted an
opportunity to rebut the allegations of malafide against him, and notice of
the writ petition was duly served. In spite of that, he decided not to file any
reply as well as in view of the remark passed by the senior police officer of
the rank of DIG, Chambal Zone, Morena, that the entire exercise, which was
initiated by the appellant against respondent No. 5, was with a malafide
intention, this Court is of considered opinion that no illegality was committed
by the learned Single Judge by quashing the impugned orders of punishment
of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and remanding the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 10-07-2026
05:50:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20007
6 WA-2888-2025
matter back to the authorities to decide afresh without getting pressurized

from appellant.
13. So far as the contention of counsel for appellant that in absence of
any prayer by respondent No. 5, the Court should not have passed any
adverse remark against him is concerned, the same is misconceived. If the
Court finds that any action taken by an officer was with an ulterior motive /
malafide / arbitrary, then Court is well within its jurisdiction to pass adverse
remarks, thereby highlighting the conduct of such officer. However, the only
requirement is that before passing any adverse remark, the Court must given
opportunity to such officer.
14. As already pointed out, allegations of malafide / ulterior motive
were specifically made against the appellant. Appellant was made party and
was served with notice. He did not file his reply. Even during the course of
arguments, it was never submitted by counsel for appellant that he was not
given any opportunity before passing the adverse remarks.
15. As no case is made out warranting interference, therefore, this writ
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
JUDGE
AKS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 10-07-2026
05:50:43 PM