Baliram Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33303
1 WP. No. 15914 of 2024
THE IN HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
WRIT PETITION No. 15914 of 2024
CNR No.: MPHC030132342024
BALIRAM PRAJAPATI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Dharmendra Singh
Raghuvanshi- Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Reserved on: 16.09.2026
Pronounced on: 30.10.2026
_________________________________________________________________
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):
(i) That, the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure P/1) and
order dated 03.10.2015 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No.1
may be directed to be quashed and set aside.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33303
2 WP. No. 15914 of 2024
(ii) That, the pension of the petitioner be directed to be restored and
arrears be directed to be paid to the petitioner w.e.f. the date the
petitioner stood retired with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
(iii) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be granted.”
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is aggrieved
by order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure P/1), whereby his representation filed
pursuant to the order passed in W.P. No.8547/2015 was rejected, as well as the
original order dated 03.10.2015 (Annexure P/2), whereby 25% of his pension
was withheld under Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The
petitioner had already retired from service on 30.04.2014. It is further submitted
that petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in the Water Resources
Department and, while posted as SDO, WRD, Veerpur, District Sheopur, a
charge-sheet dated 25.07.2009 containing three charges was issued to him, which
was received by him on 06.03.2010. However, even prior to issuance of the
charge-sheet, a decision to initiate departmental enquiry had already been taken
on 29.12.2009 without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,
thereby violating Rule 14(5) of the M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966. It is
submitted that Charge No.1 alleged that the petitioner had consented to
manipulation and forgery in the measurement book by his subordinates and had
not proposed action against the erring officers. Charge No.2 related to payment
of escalation charges of Rs.80,38,990/- to the contractor, while Charge No.3
related to alleged excess digging/payment concerning hard rock between
chainage 800 to 814. The petitioner denied all the allegations and specifically
explained that the relevant payments had been made by the competent higher
authorities and that no loss had been caused to the Government. Learned counsel
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33303
3 WP. No. 15914 of 2024
further submits that the departmental enquiry was conducted in violation of the
principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not supplied the necessary
records and statements of Government witnesses, was not given proper
opportunity to defend himself, was not permitted a defence assistant and was not
permitted to lead evidence in his defence. Despite this, the Enquiry Officer
submitted his report dated 22.07.2013 recording findings against the petitioner. It
is submitted that thereafter notice dated 04.12.2013 was issued only for oral
hearing and the petitioner was never directed to submit a representation
specifically against the enquiry report. The petitioner appeared before the
authority on 13.12.2013 and submitted his written representation. Thereafter, no
action was taken for a considerable period and, after the retirement of the
petitioner, another notice dated 29.04.2015 was issued requiring him to appear
for oral hearing on 01.05.2015, on which date he again submitted his
representation along with relevant documents. So far as Charge No.2 is
concerned, learned counsel submits that the allegation was that the petitioner had
caused financial loss of Rs.80,38,990/- to the Government by granting escalation
charges. However, the respondents themselves recovered the said amount from
the contractor and informed the Lokayukt that no financial loss had been caused
to the Government exchequer. The said communication has been filed as
Annexure P/19. Further, neither the enquiry report nor the impugned order
contains any finding regarding actual financial loss caused to the Government.
Therefore, the finding on Charge No.2 is not supported by evidence. It is further
submitted that the petitioner himself had neither sanctioned nor granted the
escalation charges. The escalation was sanctioned by the Chief Engineer vide
order dated 23.02.2007, filed as Annexure P/20. Therefore, the petitioner cannot
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33303
4 WP. No. 15914 of 2024
be held responsible for causing any loss to the Government, particularly when the
competent higher authority had permitted the escalation. The imposition of the
major penalty of withholding 25% pension after retirement is therefore illegal
and contrary to law. As regards Charge No.1, the same was not found proved by
the Enquiry Officer. So far as Charge No.3 is concerned, it was stated to be only
partially proved; however, the petitioner submits that the evidence collected
during the departmental enquiry did not establish the charge. Thus, in substance,
all the three charges could not legally sustain the severe punishment imposed
upon the petitioner. The findings recorded in respect of Charges Nos.2 and 3 are
without proper evidentiary basis and deserve to be quashed.
Learned counsel further submits that the action of the respondents is
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Sub Engineers,
who were alleged to be the main persons responsible for manipulation of the
measurement book, were either exonerated or ultimately awarded only minor
punishment. Shri B.S. Sikarwar was made a prosecution witness and was given a
clean chit. The other four Sub Engineers, who were initially punished with
compulsory retirement, succeeded in appeal, where the punishment was reduced
to placement at the minimum of their pay scale, and thereafter in review it was
further reduced to stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect.
Similarly, Shri Ajay Singh Rathore, who was also proceeded against, was initially
placed at the minimum of the pay scale of Executive Engineer, but in appeal the
order was modified in his favour and he was permitted to draw the salary which
he was receiving at the time of his promotion as Executive Engineer. The
Executive Engineer concerned was also exonerated. Thus, the petitioner alone
has been subjected to the severe penalty of withholding 25% of his pension,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33303
5 WP. No. 15914 of 2024
which is clearly discriminatory and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution.
It is submitted that a common departmental enquiry under Rule 18 of the M.P.
Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966 was conducted against the concerned officers,
yet the respondents adopted discriminatory treatment against the petitioner. The
persons against whom serious allegations were made were either exonerated or
awarded minor punishment, whereas the petitioner, against whom the allegation
was principally that he had not taken action against his subordinates, alone has
been subjected to the severe punishment of withholding 25% of his pension.
Such unequal treatment is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned
counsel submits that the petitioner had earlier challenged the order dated
03.10.2015 by filing W.P. No.8547/2015, wherein this Hon’ble Court directed the
respondents to decide the petitioner’s representation. However, while deciding
the said representation, the respondent authority failed to consider the
discriminatory treatment and rejected the petitioner’s claim vide order dated
19.03.2024. The said order is, therefore, illegal and contrary to law.
It is further submitted that no loss has been caused to the Government exchequer.
The amount relating to the contractor is already the subject matter of arbitration
proceedings, and the respondents have taken steps for recovery from the
contractor. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for causing any
loss to the Government so as to justify withholding 25% of his pension. Lastly,
learned counsel submits that the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry
are perverse, unsupported by evidence and have been accepted by the
disciplinary authority without proper application of mind. The authority failed to
consider that there was no finding of actual financial loss and that the escalation
had been sanctioned by the Chief Engineer. The punishment imposed upon the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33303
6 WP. No. 15914 of 2024
petitioner after his retirement is therefore unsustainable. Consequently, the orders
dated 19.03.2024 and 03.10.2015 deserve to be quashed and set aside, the
petitioner’s pension be restored and the arrears be paid from the date of
retirement with interest.
3. Per contra , it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent/State that the
writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner was
subjected to a departmental enquiry in accordance with the M.P. Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, and due opportunity of hearing
was afforded to him. The charges levelled against the petitioner were duly
enquired into and were found proved. There was no violation of Rule 14(5) of the
Rules of 1966 or of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner participated in
the enquiry and submitted his reply to the charge-sheet, and thereafter his
representation against the final show-cause notice was also duly considered. It is
further submitted that the penalty was imposed after considering the seriousness
of the charges and the petitioner’s conduct. The charge relating to extending
undue financial benefit of Rs.80,38,090/- to the contractor was duly examined
during the departmental enquiry. The penalty of withholding 25% of the
petitioner’s pension was therefore justified, reasonable and proportionate,
particularly as the petitioner had caused substantial loss to the public exchequer.
It is also submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal, but
instead of availing the same, he has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court
does not act as an appellate authority over departmental proceedings and cannot
re-appreciate the evidence or correctness of the findings unless there is perversity
or jurisdictional error. In the present case, neither perversity nor jurisdictional
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33303
7 WP. No. 15914 of 2024
error is made out. As regards the petitioner’s claim of parity with other
employees, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot claim negative equality
merely because a lenient view may have been taken in the case of another
employee. The case of the petitioner was considered separately in view of the
seriousness of the charges against him, and therefore the plea of discrimination
under Article 14 is not available to him. It is further submitted that the
petitioner’s representation was considered pursuant to the order passed by this
Court in the earlier round of litigation, and the same was rejected on merits after
obtaining the opinion of the Engineer-in-Chief. The case of petitioner was
distinguished from that of Ajay Singh Rathore on account of the seriousness of
the charges. It is lastly submitted that the impugned orders have been passed by
the competent authority in accordance with law, after following due process and
affording adequate opportunity of hearing. The petitioner is, therefore, not
entitled to any relief and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The first issue requiring consideration is as to whether the respondents
properly examined the petitioner's representation while passing the order dated
19.03.2024. The record shows that the petitioner had earlier approached this
Court by filing W.P. No.8547/2015, challenging the order withholding 25% of his
pension. In those proceedings, this Court directed the respondents to consider and
decide his representation.
7. Once such a direction was issued, the respondents were required to
consider the grounds raised by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order dealing
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33303
8 WP. No. 15914 of 2024
with the relevant facts and contentions. The exercise could not be completed by
merely repeating the earlier conclusion or stating that the penalty was justified.
The authority was required to examine the petitioner's objections concerning the
findings on the charges, the alleged financial loss, the role of the higher authority
in sanctioning the escalation charges and the different punishments imposed upon
the other officers.
8. The Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood
Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 , has held that an administrative or quasi -
judicial authority must record reasons when its decision adversely affects the
rights of a person. Reasons are necessary to show that the authority has applied
its mind to the relevant facts and has not acted arbitrarily. A reasoned order also
enables the affected person and the reviewing Court to understand the basis of
the decision. The relevant part of Kranti Associates Private Limited (supra) is
quoted below for ready reference and convenience:
" 47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds :
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33303
9 WP. No. 15914 of 2024
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.
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33303
10 WP. No. 15914 of 2024
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33303
11 WP. No. 15914 of 2024
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 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."
9. Applying the aforesaid principle to the present case, this Court finds that
the petitioner's representation raised several material grounds which required
independent consideration. The question was not merely whether some charges
had been found proved during the enquiry. The respondents were also required to
consider whether the penalty of withholding 25% of pension was justified in the
light of the findings on the individual charges, the material concerning the
alleged financial loss and the treatment given to other officers involved in the
same incident.
10. The order dated 19.03.2024 does not satisfactorily demonstrate that all
these grounds were examined in their proper perspective. In particular, the
petitioner's contention that the other officers received substantially lesser
punishments required a reasoned response. The respondents were required to
compare the nature of the allegations, the role attributed to each officer, the
findings recorded against them and the punishments ultimately imposed. Without
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33303
12 WP. No. 15914 of 2024
such an examination, the rejection of the representation cannot be regarded as a
proper decision in compliance with the earlier direction of this Court.
11. The next question is whether the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is
sustainable in view of the treatment given to the other officers. Article 14 of the
Constitution of India requires the State to act fairly and not to treat similarly
situated persons differently without a reasonable basis. In disciplinary matters, it
is not necessary that every employee must receive exactly the same punishment.
The responsibility of each employee, the nature of the misconduct proved and the
circumstances of the individual case may justify different penalties. However,
where several officers are proceeded against in relation to the same incident, a
substantial difference in punishment must be supported by relevant reasons.
12. In the present case, the petitioner has pointed out that the Sub Engineers,
who were allegedly involved in the manipulation of the measurement book, were
either exonerated or ultimately awarded lesser penalties. According to the
petitioner, some officers who were initially awarded severe punishment
succeeded in appeal and review, and their punishments were substantially
reduced. The petitioner has also referred to the case of the concerned Executive
Engineer, who was exonerated or otherwise dealt with more favourably.
13. These circumstances cannot be ignored merely by stating that the
petitioner cannot claim negative equality. The principle of negative equality
prevents a person from demanding an unlawful benefit simply because another
person has received it. However, the petitioner is not merely relying upon an
isolated illegal benefit. His case is that the officers concerned were proceeded
against in relation to the same incident and that the differences in their respective
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33303
13 WP. No. 15914 of 2024
roles and punishments were not properly considered before continuing the
penalty against him.
14. The respondents were, therefore, required to examine whether the
petitioner had a greater degree of responsibility than the other officers and
whether the punishment imposed upon him was justified in view of the findings
recorded in the common departmental proceedings. The impugned order does not
satisfactorily answer these questions. The plea of parity was a material ground of
representation and could not have been rejected without examining the relevant
facts.
15. The next important aspect concerns the alleged financial loss to the
Government. The petitioner has relied upon Annexure P/19, which, according to
him, records that the amount relating to the escalation charges was recovered
from the contractor and that no financial loss was caused to the Government
exchequer. He has also relied upon Annexure P/20, being order dated 23.02.2007,
whereby the escalation charges were sanctioned by the Chief Engineer.
16. These documents are relevant to the petitioner's defence. The fact that the
escalation charges were sanctioned by the Chief Engineer does not automatically
absolve the petitioner of responsibility for any independent misconduct
established against him. Similarly, recovery of the amount from the contractor
does not, by itself, establish that no irregularity occurred. Nevertheless, where the
penalty is sought to be justified on the basis of substantial financial loss, the
authority must examine the evidence concerning the alleged loss, the recovery
made and the petitioner's individual responsibility.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33303
14 WP. No. 15914 of 2024
17. The petitioner has specifically asserted that the respondents themselves
informed the Lokayukt that no financial loss had been caused to the Government
exchequer. He has also contended that the amount was recovered from the
contractor and that the matter relating to the contractor was subject to arbitration
proceedings. If these circumstances are borne out by the record, they are relevant
to the assessment of the nature and seriousness of the misconduct and the
proportionality of the penalty.
18. The respondents were required to explain how the alleged financial loss
was attributable to the petitioner, particularly when the escalation charges were
sanctioned by the higher authority and the amount was stated to have been
recovered. The impugned order does not satisfactorily demonstrate that these
aspects were considered while rejecting the petitioner's representation. This Court
is not holding that the recovery of money automatically wipes out misconduct, if
otherwise proved. The finding is that the material relating to the alleged financial
loss and the petitioner's responsibility was required to be examined before
deciding whether the substantial reduction in pension should continue.
19. It is also relevant that, according to the petitioner's case, Charge No.1 was
not found proved and Charge No.3 was found only partially proved. These
findings, together with the material concerning Charge No.2, the role of the
higher authority and the punishment imposed upon the other officers, were
relevant to the overall assessment of the penalty. The respondents were required
to examine the cumulative effect of these circumstances rather than treating the
existence of any adverse finding as sufficient, by itself, to justify withholding
25% of the petitioner's pension.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33303
15 WP. No. 15914 of 2024
20. The Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC
749 , has explained that judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is not an
appeal on facts. A Court ordinarily does not substitute its own findings for those
of the disciplinary authority merely because another view is possible. However,
judicial review is available where the decision suffers from a recognised legal
infirmity, including perversity or an error in the decision-making process.
21. The present case does not require this Court to re-appreciate the entire
evidence recorded during the departmental enquiry. The interference is warranted
because the authority, while deciding the petitioner's representation, did not
satisfactorily deal with material grounds relating to parity, the alleged financial
loss and the proportionality of the penalty. The limited scope of judicial review
does not prevent this Court from examining whether the authority acted fairly,
considered the relevant material and gave adequate reasons for its decision.
22. The question of proportionality also assumes importance in the present
circumstances. The petitioner stood retired on 30.04.2014 and the penalty was
imposed by order dated 03.10.2015. He, thereafter, approached this Court and
was required to pursue further proceedings for consideration of his
representation, which was ultimately rejected on 19.03.2024. Thus, the dispute
has continued for a considerable period after his retirement.
23. The passage of time alone cannot invalidate a lawful penalty, and an
employee does not become entitled to relief merely because litigation has been
prolonged. However, the petitioner's prolonged litigation must be considered
along with the material showing different treatment of other officers, the findings
recorded on the individual charges and the alleged absence of financial loss to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33303
16 WP. No. 15914 of 2024
Government. Taken together, these circumstances required the respondents to
undertake a careful and reasoned assessment of whether the penalty imposed
upon the petitioner remained justified.
24. Pension is an important post-retirement entitlement. Where a part of
pension is withheld under the applicable pension rules, the decision must be
supported by the relevant findings and must comply with the governing rules.
Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, permits action in the
circumstances specified therein, subject to the conditions prescribed by the
Rules. The existence of this power does not remove the obligation of the
authority to act fairly, consider the relevant material and pass a reasoned order.
25. In the present case, the Court is not holding that pension can never be
withheld where a departmental charge is proved nor is it laying down that
recovery of an amount from a contractor necessarily bars disciplinary action. The
conclusion is confined to the facts of the present case. The petitioner raised
specific and substantial grounds which directly concerned the justification for
continuing the penalty. The order rejecting his representation does not adequately
address these grounds, particularly the plea of unequal treatment and the material
concerning the alleged financial loss.
26. Considering the overall circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
petitioner has already been subjected to prolonged litigation and financial
prejudice after retirement. The respondents had an opportunity, pursuant to the
earlier directions of this Court, to examine his representation in a meaningful
manner. However, the material issues raised by him have not been satisfactorily
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33303
17 WP. No. 15914 of 2024
addressed. In these circumstances, directing yet another round of consideration
would prolong the dispute further and would not serve the ends of justice.
27. The Court is, therefore, satisfied that the impugned orders deserve to be set
aside. This conclusion is based on the failure to properly consider the petitioner's
material grounds, the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the difference in
treatment of the officers concerned, and the failure to adequately examine the
material relating to the alleged financial loss and the proportionality of the
penalty.
28. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 19.03.2024
(Annexure P/1), rejecting the petitioner's representation, and the order dated
03.10.2015 (Annexure P/2), whereby 25% of the petitioner's pension was
withheld, are hereby quashed and set aside.
29. The respondents are directed to restore the 25% portion of the petitioner's
pension withheld under the impugned order and to recalculate his pension
accordingly. The arrears arising from such restoration shall be calculated and
paid with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within three months from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner's future pension shall
also be paid at the restored rate, subject to any other lawful and independent
order applicable to him.
30. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to
costs.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM