Atul Bajpai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24571
1 WP-16964-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
st
ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 16964 of 2026
ATUL BAJPAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Ashish Choubey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Swati Ukhale - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Atul Khare - Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5.
ORDER
The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India, has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari,
thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated
28.02.2026 (Annexure-P/8) passed by Respondent No. 4,
being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation
of the provisions of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act,
1956;
(ii) Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of
mandamus, directing the respondents to reinstate the
petitioner in service forthwith with continuity of service and
all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:44:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24571
2 WP-16964-2026
(iii) Any other relief as this Hon'ble court may deem fit

and proper may also be granted."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
initially engaged as a daily-wage employee in the Indore Municipal
Corporation and was subsequently conferred the status of permanent
employee pursuant to the Government policy dated 07.10.2016 and order
dated 29.05.2018. He submits that the petitioner has rendered long service
and was thereafter posted in the Establishment Branch.
It is further submitted that in connection with Legislative Assembly
Question No.607, certain information was called for from the Municipal
Corporation. The requisite information was collected from the concerned
branches and was thereafter forwarded for submission to the Legislative
Assembly. The discrepancy in the information was at best a bona
fide/typographical mistake and there was no allegation of any mala fide
intention on his part.
Learned counsel further submits that, without issuing any show-cause
notice, charge-sheet or affording any opportunity of hearing, the Additional
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Indore, passed the impugned order
dated 28.02.2026, whereby the petitioner was relieved from work/attendance
and his salary was stopped. It is contended that the impugned order is
punitive in nature and has civil consequences.
It is further argued that the petitioner's service conditions are governed
by the applicable statutory provisions as well as the Government Circular
dated 03.05.2017 and no penalty having civil consequences could have been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:44:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24571
3 WP-16964-2026
imposed without following the procedure prescribed by law and without

affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. In support of his submissions,
reliance is placed in the matter of Gopal Patona v. State of M.P. & Others,
decided on 17.06.2026 passed in W.P. No.45470/2025.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents opposes the
petition. It is submitted that the impugned order was passed in exercise of
administrative powers after serious irregularities were noticed in the
information furnished in connection with Assembly Starred Question
No.607. Appendix-I contained incorrect information and had been prepared
by the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner failed to
discharge his duties properly and exhibited negligence and indiscipline in
dealing with an important matter relating to the Legislative Assembly.
Learned counsel further submits that the Circular dated 03.05.2017
does not prevent the employer from taking action against a Sthai Karmi for
negligence, indiscipline or disregard of duties and the petitioner cannot avoid
responsibility merely by describing the mistake as bona fide. Hence, prays
for dismissal of the petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The principal question, which arises for consideration is whether the
respondents could have, without initiating any disciplinary proceedings and
without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the
impugned order dated 28.02.2026 relieving him from duty/attendance and
stopping his salary on the allegation of negligence in furnishing incorrect
information in connection with Legislative Assembly Question No.607.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:44:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24571
4 WP-16964-2026
From the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the

petitioner was initially engaged as a daily-wage employee and was
subsequently granted the status of Sthai Karmi/Permanent Employee
pursuant to the Government policy dated 07.10.2016 and the consequential
order dated 29.05.2018. The record also indicates that the petitioner had been
working in the Municipal Corporation for a considerable period and was
posted in the Establishment Branch. The record further demonstrates that the
information relating to Assembly Question No.607 passed through different
administrative channels and was required to be collected from the concerned
branches. The communication dated 30.01.2026 and subsequent
correspondence show that the information was being called for and processed
through the administrative hierarchy.
The impugned order dated 28.02.2026, however, proceeds on the basis
that the information furnished in Appendix-I was incorrect and attributes the
lapse to the petitioner. The petitioner has specifically disputed any deliberate
wrongdoing and has pleaded that the discrepancy was a bona fide mistake
occurring in the course of urgent furnishing of information. He had also
submitted a detailed representation dated 22.04.2026 requesting
reconsideration of the matter and restoration of his duty.
In the considered opinion of this Court, even assuming that the
petitioner was responsible for furnishing incorrect information, such
allegation constitutes a matter requiring determination in accordance with the
applicable service rules/procedure. The respondents could not, merely on the
basis of an allegation of negligence or misconduct, impose a punitive
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:44:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24571
5 WP-16964-2026
consequence affecting the petitioner's service and salary without following

the procedure prescribed by law.
The distinction between a purely administrative arrangement and an
order having punitive consequences is material. The impugned order has not
merely changed the petitioner's place of posting or assigned him different
duties. It has relieved him from work/attendance and stopped his salary. Such
action undoubtedly visits the petitioner with serious civil and service
consequences.
The respondents themselves assert that the petitioner committed
negligence and indiscipline while dealing with an important matter
concerning the Legislative Assembly. Thus, the foundation of the impugned
action is an allegation of misconduct. Once the action is founded upon an
allegation of misconduct and results in an adverse consequence affecting the
employee's service and emoluments, the same cannot be sustained without
adherence to the principles of natural justice and the procedure prescribed by
law.
The Circular dated 03.05.2017, which has been relied upon by both
sides, itself contemplates disciplinary action in cases of misconduct and also
provides for consideration of specified circumstances for termination of
service. The material placed on record does not demonstrate that, before
passing the impugned order, the petitioner was issued any show-cause notice,
was informed of the specific charge against him, or was granted a reasonable
opportunity to explain his position. The petitioner has specifically pleaded
that no such opportunity was afforded to him, and the respondents have not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:44:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24571
6 WP-16964-2026
placed on record any disciplinary proceeding preceding the impugned order.

This aspect assumes greater significance in view of the order of this
Court in W.P. No.45470/2025, Gopal Patona v. State of M.P. & Others,
decided on 17.06.2026, wherein this Court considered the very same Circular
dated 03.05.2017. In that case, the Court held that an employee could not be
terminated merely on the basis of registration of an FIR or filing of a challan
when the alleged misconduct had not been established in accordance with
law. The termination order was consequently quashed and reinstatement with
consequential benefits was directed, while liberty was reserved to the
Corporation to take appropriate action by following the procedure
permissible under law.
The aforesaid principle applies with greater force to the present case to
the extent that the impugned action is founded upon an allegation of
negligence/indiscipline, which has not been established through any
disciplinary enquiry. The respondents may have a legitimate concern
regarding the correctness of information furnished to the Legislative
Assembly; however, such concern does not dispense with the requirement of
following the procedure prescribed by law before visiting an employee with
punitive civil consequences.
It is also relevant that the petitioner had specifically placed before the
respondents his explanation that the discrepancy was a bona fide mistake and
had sought reconsideration by his representation dated 22.04.2026. The
representation was not shown to have been duly considered before the
impugned action was continued.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:44:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24571
7 WP-16964-2026
The contention of the respondents that the petitioner cannot claim the

same protection as a regular statutory employee does not, in the facts of the
present case, justify dispensing with the basic requirement of fairness. Even
an employee holding the status of Sthai Karmi cannot be subjected to
punitive action involving serious civil consequences in an arbitrary manner
and without adherence to the procedure applicable to him.
This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the impugned
order dated 28.02.2026 cannot be sustained. The order has been passed
without affording the petitioner an opportunity to explain the alleged lapse
and without undertaking the disciplinary process necessary for determination
of the allegation of negligence/misconduct. Consequently, the impugned
order dated 28.02.2026 (Annexure-P/8) passed by Respondent No.4 is hereby
quashed.
The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service
forthwith, with continuity of service and consequential benefits in
accordance with law. The period during which the petitioner remained out of
duty pursuant to the impugned order shall be dealt with for the purpose of
salary and other consequential benefits in accordance with law.
However, it is clarified that this order shall not preclude the
respondents from initiating or continuing any disciplinary proceedings in
respect of the alleged irregularity/negligence, if otherwise permissible under
the applicable rules. In such an event, the respondents shall proceed strictly
in accordance with law and shall afford the petitioner reasonable opportunity
of defence before taking any final decision.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:44:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24571
8 WP-16964-2026
The respondents shall also consider and release the admissible

consequential monetary benefits arising from quashing of the impugned
order within a reasonable period.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed
of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:44:43 PM