B.B. Gangele vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:55362
1 WA-3367-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
rd
ON THE 23 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 3367 of 2025
B.B. GANGELE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Lala, Advocate appears through VC with Ms. Raksha Patel,
Advocate for petitioner .
Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Shri Anubhav Jain G.A. for the State.
ORDER
Per: Pradeep Mittal, J.
The present appeal is directed against the order dated 21.01.2025,
whereby the learned Single Judge remitted the matter to the Commissioner,
Sagar Division, Sagar, directing him to summon the present appellant, Shri
B.B. Gangele, seek his explanation, and examine whether criminal as well as
departmental proceedings should be initiated against him for the alleged
criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of compensation amount
belonging to the public trust, and recovery of the alleged misappropriated
amount. The Commissioner was further directed to take an appropriate
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:33:45

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:55362
2 WA-3367-2025
decision on or before 07.03.2025 and communicate the same to the Registry

of this Court. The appellant challenges the aforesaid directions, particularly
the adverse observations and findings recorded against him without affording
him any opportunity of hearing and in violation of the principles of natural
justice.
2. The appellant submits that the impugned order is liable to be set
aside as the learned Single Judge recorded adverse observations and prima
facie findings against the appellant, resulting in serious civil and penal
consequences, despite the appellant not being impleaded as a party to the
writ proceedings. No notice was issued to the appellant, nor was any
opportunity of hearing afforded to him before such findings and
consequential directions were issued, in clear violation of the principles of
natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem.
3. The writ petitioner was aggrieved by the impugned order dated
11.03.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Sagar, whereby a direction had
been issued for recovery of Rs. 5,12,523/-, alleging that the said amount was
wrongly paid to the writ petitioner under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act. The case of the writ petitioner was that he is the Mahant of
Shri Gopalji Mandir, Kararaganj, District Chhatarpur (M.P.). Certain land
belonging to the said temple was acquired in the year 2017 for the
construction of a National Highway. Without any misrepresentation, fraud,
or fault on the part of the writ petitioner, the Land Acquisition Officer
deposited the compensation amount into the writ petitioner's bank account.
The writ petitioner, acting in his capacity as Mahant, utilized the said amount
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:33:45

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:55362
3 WA-3367-2025
for the construction and renovation of the temple and for meeting other

essential requirements of the temple. Thereafter, a detailed enquiry was
conducted, in which it was specifically found that the writ petitioner had not
misappropriated any part of the compensation amount. Despite the findings
of the enquiry, the Commissioner, Sagar, passed the impugned order
directing recovery of the aforesaid amount without considering the relevant
facts and circumstances of the case and without affording the writ petitioner
any opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural
justice. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, and having no other equally
efficacious and speedy alternative remedy available under law, the petitioner
had approached this Court by way of the writ petition seeking appropriate
relief.
4. The Writ Court observed that the Commissioner, Sagar Division,
Sagar, had exonerated Shri B.B. Gangele without properly appreciating the
fact that Shri Gangele was equally responsible for not depositing the
compensation amount, awarded towards the acquisition of land for the
construction of a four-lane National Highway, into the bank account of the
Trust. Instead, he handed over the compensation amount to the writ
petitioner. The Writ Court further directed that the Commissioner shall
summon Shri B.B. Gangele, call for his explanation, and examine whether he
is liable for criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of funds belonging
to the public trust. The Commissioner was further directed to consider why
criminal proceedings, in addition to departmental proceedings, should not be
initiated against Shri B.B. Gangele. The Commissioner was also directed to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:33:45

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:55362
4 WA-3367-2025
take appropriate action against the petitioner for the amount alleged to have

been misappropriated by him, in addition to such criminal action as may be
considered appropriate in accordance with law.
5. It is an admitted fact on record that Shri B.B. Gangele had already
retired from service. A departmental disciplinary enquiry was conducted by
the competent disciplinary authority, in which he was exonerated of all the
charges levelled against him. The said order of exoneration has attained
finality, as no appeal or other proceedings challenging the same were
preferred by the department. In these circumstances, the suo motu
observations made by the Writ Court could not have the effect of reopening
the concluded departmental proceedings against a retired employee.
Furthermore, the adverse findings recorded against Shri B.B. Gangele were
made without affording him any opportunity of hearing and, therefore, are
liable to be set aside as being in violation of the principles of natural
justice. Moreover, once Shri B.B. Gangele had been exonerated in the
departmental enquiry and the order had attained finality, the departmental
proceedings could not be reopened. In any event, after his retirement, no
fresh departmental proceedings could be instituted against him except in
accordance with the applicable statutory rules governing post-retirement
disciplinary action.
6. The writ petitioner had sought relief only against the recovery
order directing recovery of the compensation amount, which had been
wrongly deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer into the petitioner's bank
account. The sole contention of the writ petitioner was that the impugned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:33:45

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:55362
5 WA-3367-2025
recovery order had been passed without affording him an opportunity of

hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice. In such
circumstances, the Writ Court ought to have confined its consideration to the
validity of the recovery order. At the highest, the recovery order could have
been set aside only to the limited extent of the violation of the principles of
natural justice, with a direction to the competent authority to afford the writ
petitioner an opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass a fresh order in
accordance with law.
7. It is, therefore, submitted that the entire impugned order ought
not to have been set aside. Furthermore, no direction could have been issued
for conducting a fresh enquiry or initiating fresh departmental or criminal
proceedings against Shri B.B. Gangele, particularly when he had already
been exonerated in the departmental enquiry, the order of exoneration had
attained finality, and he had retired from service.
8. The writ petitioner had sought relief only against the recovery
order directing recovery of the sum of Rs.5,12,523/-, which had been
wrongly deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer into the petitioner's bank
account. The sole grievance raised by the petitioner was that the recovery
order had been passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing,
thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
9. In our opinion, the Writ Court ought to have confined its
consideration to the validity of the recovery order alone. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the recovery order could have been set aside only
to the limited extent that it had been passed without granting the petitioner an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:33:45

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:55362
6 WA-3367-2025
opportunity of hearing, with a consequential direction to the competent

authority to afford such opportunity and thereafter pass a fresh order in
accordance with law.
10. The Writ Court was not justified in setting aside the entire
impugned order or in issuing directions for conducting a fresh enquiry or
initiating fresh proceedings against Shri B.B. Gangele, particularly when he
had already been exonerated in the departmental enquiry, the order of
exoneration had attained finality, and he had retired from service.
11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the
Writ Court in W.P. No. 24114 of 2022 is set aside to the aforesaid extent.
The recovery order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Commissioner, directing
recovery of Rs. 5,12,523/- from the writ petitioner, is also set aside solely on
the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The matter is
remitted back to the Commissioner/respondent no. 2. The competent
authority is directed to afford the writ petitioner a reasonable opportunity of
hearing and thereafter pass a fresh, reasoned order in accordance with law.
12. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
MSP

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:33:45