Munnalal Pant vs State Of M.P.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33970
1 WP-353-2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 4 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 353 of 2008
CNR No.: MPHC030013032008
MUNNALAL PANT
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alok Katare - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri K.S. Tomar - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"It is therefore most humbly prayed that the petition may kindly be
allowed with costs by issuance of A Writ, Order of Director
quashing the punishment Annexure P/1 dated 27.7.2007 and
Annexure P/2 dated 29.12.2007 and the communication of adverse
ACR dated 27.6.2007 Annexure P/20 an they are wholly illegal,
without jurisdiction and contrary to the order and any other relief
in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit, may kindly be directed to be given."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the relevant
point of time, petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector and posted as
Incharge, Police Check Post, Maksudangarh. Charge-sheet dated 20.02.2007
(Annexure P-9) was issued. It is submitted that before issuing the charge-
sheet, a preliminary enquiry has been conducted by the respondents.
The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet, thereafter Disciplinary
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
5:39:49 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33970
2 WP-353-2008
Authority/S.P. Guna appointed the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer

and Additional S.P., Guna was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Enquiry
Officer conducted the enquiry and did not prove the charges vide Annexure
P-17. Learned counsel submitted that thereafter S.P. Guna, without issuing
any show cause notice to the petitioner, directly passed the order dated
16.06.2007 (Annexure P-18) and proved the charges and forwarded the same
to the DIG and thereafter DIG issued a show cause notice to the petitioner.
2.1 Learned counsel submitted that it is well settled position that if the
opinion of Disciplinary Authority is differ from the Enquiry Officer, then the
Disciplinary Authority must assign reason for disagreement with the Enquiry
Officer and thereafter he must communicate such reason to the petitioner and
after calling explanation/reply upon the disagreement, the S.P. can pass the
punishment order. However, in the present case, the Superintendent of
Police, Guna, recorded findings contrary to those of the Enquiry Officer
without assigning and communicating the reasons for disagreement to the
petitioner or affording him an opportunity to submit his explanation, and
directly forwarded the same to the DIG.
2.3 Learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid procedure adopted by
the Superintendent of Police was contrary to the provisions of the Madhya
Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966
(hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1966") and the Police Regulations. It
is submitted that thereafter DIG issued a show cause notice dated 25.06.2007
to the petitioner and petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice,
however, the reply was not duly considered by the DIG and and a major
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
5:39:49 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33970
3 WP-353-2008
penalty of reduction to the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the post

of Assistant Sub-Inspector for a period of three years was imposed upon him.
2.4 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per
Rule 15 of the Rules, 1966, if the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the
findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, he is required to issue a show-cause
notice to the petitioner and after considering the reply thereto, can only pass
an order contrary to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The DIG
has failed to consider the mandatory requirements of Rule 15 of the Rules of
1966 and without considering the aforesaid, punishment order (Annexure P-
1) has been issued by the DIG, thereafter petitioner preferred an appeal
before the I.G., Gwalior Range, Gwalior and the appellate authority has also
not considered the aforesaid aspect and rejected the appeal vide order dated
29.11.2007 (Annexure P-2).
2.5 Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the
judgments passed in the cases of Ram Krishna Kanade vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in 2018 (1) MPLJ 698; Yognath D. Bagade vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in AIR 1999 SC 3734 and Vikram Singh Rana vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2013 (2) MPL 232.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made
by learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned order. It is
submitted that during the enquiry, full opportunity of hearing was granted to
the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and the Disciplinary Authority is
not bound by the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. It is submitted
that the punishment order has rightly been passed by the respondent.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
5:39:49 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33970
4 WP-353-2008
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. From perusal of record, it reveals that the Enquiry Officer, after
conducting a departmental enquiry, had not found the charges levelled
against the petitioner to be proved. However, the Superintendent of Police,
Guna, disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and recorded
contrary findings vide order dated 16.06.2007 (Annexure P-18), without
communicating the reasons for such disagreement to the petitioner or
affording him an opportunity to submit his explanation. The said procedure
was contrary to Rule 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the principles of
natural justice. Although the DIG issued a show-cause notice dated
25.06.2007, the petitioner's reply was not duly considered and a major
penalty of reduction to the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the post
of Assistant Sub-Inspector for a period of three years was imposed vide order
dated 16.06.2007 (Annexure P-1). The appellate authority also failed to
consider the aforesaid procedural illegality and rejected the petitioner's
appeal vide order dated 29.11.2007 (Annexure P-2). The impugned
punishment order and the appellate order are unsustainable in law for non-
compliance with the mandatory requirements of Rule 15 of the Rules of
1966 and the principles of natural justice. The decisions passed in Ram
Krishna Kanade (supra), Yognath D. Bagade (supra) and Vikram Singh Rana
(supra) also support the aforesaid legal position.
6. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Disciplinary
Authority did not issue any show cause notice while disagreeing with the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
5:39:49 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33970
5 WP-353-2008
findings arrived at by the inquiry officer. In the light of the aforesaid, the

relevant provisions pertaining to the procedure for taking action on the
enquiry report is to be analyzed. For the sake of reference, Rule 15 of the
Rules of 1966 reads as under :
"15. Action on the inquiry report. - (1) The disciplinary authority
if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be
recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority
for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall
thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the
provisions of Rule 14 as far as may be.
(2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings
of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its
reasons for such disagreement and record its own finding on such
charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.
(3) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all
or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the
penalties specified in [x x x] Rule 10 should be imposed on the
Government servants, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained
in Rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty [but in doing so
it shall record reasons in writing]:
Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the
Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the
disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice and such
advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order
imposing any penalty on the Government servant".
7. Aforesaid statutory provisions of law provides for a procedure in
respect of action to be taken on the basis of the enquiry and the same clearly
provides that the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with the finding
arrived at by the Enquiry Officer has to record reasons for his disagreement.
8. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents/State that
Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1966 only postulates recording of
reasons and there is no requirement to issue any notice or affording any
opportunity of hearing, is totally misconceived. It is settled principle of law
that the Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the
Enquiry Officer on any article of charge, it must record its reasons for such
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
5:39:49 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33970
6 WP-353-2008
disagreement and record its own finding on such charge, if the evidence on

record is sufficient for the purpose and communicate the delinquent
employee the tentative reason for disagreeing with the finding of Enquiry
Officer.
9. In the case of Yoginath D.Bagde (supra), the Apex Court relying on
the judgement passed in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Behari
Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84, held that the requirement of affording
opportunity of hearing as laid in Kunj Behari Misra (Supra) being in
consonance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution and being a constitutional
right to be heard, has to be read into a rule, which does not make specific
provision to the effect. Disciplinary Authority before forming its final
opinion has to convey to the charged employee its tentative reasons for
disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Apex Court further
in the case of Mathura Prasad Vs. Union of India reported in (2007) 1 SCC
437 again referred to the akin provisions of Rule 10 of Railway Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 held that an opportunity of hearing to
the delinquent officer is required to be given. Para 18 of the said judgment is
reproduced as under :
"Even if the Inquiry Officer had, in his first report, proceeded on
surmises and conjectures as was observed by the High Court, the
disciplinary authority could disagree with the said finding but it
was therefore, required to record its reasons. No reason was
recorded. Sub rules (2) and (3) of Rule 10 aim at achieving the
same purpose. If sufficient material are not available on record, a
direction for holding a further inquiry may be issued in terms of
sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 so as to enable the department to lead
further evidence before him. For the said purpose also, reasons are
required to be recorded by the disciplinary authority. An
opportunity of hearing to the delinquent of officer is required to be
given however, in the event, the disciplinary authority comes to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
5:39:49 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33970
7 WP-353-2008
the conclusion that the conclusion arrived at by the inquiry of
officer on the basis of material placed by the parties are incorrect,
he may disagree with the said findings but even, therefor, he is
required to record reasons in support thereof. The requirement of
sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) having not been complied with, the
inquiry of officer could not have arrived at a different finding. The
High Court unfortunately did not consider this aspect of the
matter".

10. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, a coordinate Bench of this
Court has considered the provisions of Rule 15 (2) of the Rules of 1966 in
the case of Vikram Singh Rana (supra) and had held that the show cause
notice and opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer in the case of
disagreement by the Disciplinary Authority with the findings of Enquiry
Officer is mandatory and it has to be read in the Rule 14 of the Rules,
1966. Similar view has been taken by the another coordinate Bench in the
matter of Ram Krishna Kanade (supra).
11. In the case of B.S.Jaiswal Vs. State of MP and others reported in
2008 (1) JLJ 291 wherein, while incorporating Rule 15(2) of the Rules,
1966, a coordinate Bench of this Court has held that if the Disciplinary
Authority disagreeing with finding of Enquiry Officer who held delinquent
officer not guilty of any charges, it casts a duty upon the Disciplinary
Authority to inform the delinquent officer of the tentative reason and also has
to hear him.
12. Consequently, the impugned punishment order dated 27.07.2007
(Annexure P-1) and appeal rejection order dated 29.12.2007 (Annexure P-2)
are hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to give all the consequential
benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which respondents are directed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
5:39:49 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33970
8 WP-353-2008
to give the aforesaid benefits to the petitioner with interest @6% per annum

from the date of entitlement till actual payment.
13. Since the petitioner has already retired, therefore, no opportunity is
granted to the respondents to take a fresh action against the petitioner.
14. With aforesaid, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Abhi

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
5:39:49 PM