Dr.Hari Singh Sagar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26418
1 WP-352-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
nd
ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 352 of 2019
DR.HARI SINGH SAGAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harish Kumar Dixit - Senior Advocate with Ms. Ritika Chaubey -
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Quashing the order dated 14.09.2018 (Annexure P-1).
(ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court finds appropriate in
the matter.
(iii) Costs."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the relevant
point of time, petitioner was posted as Medical Officer, Kailaras in the year
2008 when a vehicle was hired as Janani Express by Rogi Kalayan Samiti
and in respect of alleged wrong payment, a show cause notice dated
18.06.2012 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner had submitted its
reply. After lapse of about one and half years, respondents issued another
show cause notice dated 19.01.2018 stating that earlier show cause notice
was issued to the effect that procedure for engaging vehicle is not in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/2/2026
6:20:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26418
2 WP-352-2019
accordance with guidelines. Log books are not attested. Names of

beneficiaries are not verified from registration. Thereafter, petitioner had
submitted his reply dated 22.08.2016 and denied the charges and submitted
that the payment has been made after taking approval from the Senior Officer
and further stated that no financial irregularities have been committed by the
petitioner and also requested to re-enquire into the matter and then decide it.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that despite the
aforesaid, respondents have passed the impugned order dated 14.09.2018
(Annexure P-1) and penalty of Rs.98,922/- has been imposed upon the
petitioner and submitted that as per the reported judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India [(2001) 9 SCC
180], if petitioner denies the charges levelled in the show cause notice then
even the minor penalty can be imposed after conducting the departmental
enquiry and in the present case, without conducting the regular departmental
enquiry, impugned order dated 14.09.2018 has been passed.
4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned
order and opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From perusal of aforesaid, it is gathered that petitioner, while posted
as Medical Officer, Kailaras, in 2008, was responsible for a vehicle engaged
as Janani Express by Rogi Kalyan Samiti, and in respect of alleged irregular
payment, a show-cause notice was issued to him, to which he submitted his
reply denying the allegations and stating that the payments were made with
due approval of the Senior Officer. Despite the petitioner’s request for re-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/2/2026
6:20:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26418
3 WP-352-2019
enquiry and denial of any financial irregularity, the respondents passed the

impugned order dated 14.09.2018 (Annexure P-1), imposing a penalty of
Rs.98,922/- upon him without conducting a regular departmental enquiry. As
per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj (supra), if
the petitioner denied the factual allegations contained in the show-cause
notice, the disciplinary authority could not mechanically impose even a
minor penalty merely after obtaining his reply and an enquiry was required to
be held to determine the disputed factual charges in accordance with the
principles of natural justice.
7. The petitioner has already mentioned in his reply and denied the
charges and requested for re-enquiry into the matter in following manner:-
"
साथ ह  उ  भुगतान शासन के ारा दये गये िनद शो के पालन म  िनयमानुसार कया

गया है। इसिलये कसी भी कार के !व#ीय हािन या अिनयिमतता का % ह  नह 

उठता है।

अतः (ीमान से अनुरोध है। क उ  करण क + पुनः जांच कर करण का िनराकरण

कया जावे

उपरो ानुसार अनुबंध एवं भुगतान संबंिधत सम 1त द 1तावेजो क + छाया ित
"
अवलोकन हेतु सलं 3न है।
8. Despite the aforesaid request, respondents have directly issued the
impugned order dated 14.09.2018.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of O.K. Bharwaj (supra) has
held as under:-
"3. While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court
having regard to the rule position which expressly says that
"withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative
effect" is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the
second proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an
opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his
say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against
him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by
the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/2/2026
6:20:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26418
4 WP-352-2019
This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice
and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with."
10. Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given

to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with
respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if
they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called
for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and
the said requirement cannot be dispensed with. As disciplinary authority has
issued a non-speaking and unreasoned order and charges are factual and they
are denied by the delinquent/petitioner, an enquiry should also be called for
and as there is no regular departmental enquiry has been conducted before
awarding the minor punishment.
11. Considering the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 14.09.2018
(Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. Consequently, the respondents are
directed to refund the amount of Rs.98,922/- to the petitioner if already
recovered from the petitioner. As the petitioner has already retired, therefore,
no liberty is granted to the respondents to take a fresh action against the
petitioner.
12. With aforesaid, present petition is allowed and disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Abhi

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 9/2/2026
6:20:19 AM