Pista Rawat vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33160
1 WP-45113-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 29 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 45113 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030302482026
PISTA RAWAT
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Pratip Visoriya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.K. Prajapati - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. That, order dated 30/09/2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by
respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed.
2. That, if any direction has been given against the petitioner
by Commissioner, it may also be quashed.
3. That, any other relief, including the cost of the petition be
given."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
working as Gram Rojgar Sahayak and is presently posted at Gram Panchayat
Chouki, District Morena. It is submitted that the M.P. Rajya Rojgar
Guarantee Council has issued a new policy prescribing the service conditions
of Gram Rojgar Sahayaks. As per the said guidelines, if the Chief Executive
Officer (CEO), Zila Panchayat, after conducting a preliminary inquiry, comes
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
06:14:55 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33160
2 WP-45113-2026
to the conclusion that the allegations are grave in nature, he may order an
inquiry. During the inquiry, the Gram Rojgar Sahayak shall be restrained
from performing his duties and shall be paid 50% of the honorarium.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a complaint
containing more or less similar allegations was made against the petitioner
by respondent No. 5. An inquiry was conducted, but no evidence was found
against the petitioner. A copy of the inquiry report dated 15.09.2025 is on
record as Annexure P/5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that respondent No. 5 again made a complaint before the Collector, and one
Abhishek Kushwaha also submitted a complaint before the Divisional
Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena. Pursuant to the directions issued
by the Divisional Commissioner, a show-cause notice was issued to the
petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said notice. However,
without considering the facts and grounds mentioned in the reply, the CEO,
Zila Panchayat, Morena, passed the impugned order dated 30.09.2026,
whereby the petitioner was restrained from performing his duties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, till date, the
petitioner has not been found guilty in any inquiry conducted by the
respondents and has been given a clean chit by the Inquiry Committee. The
earlier inquiry report was also approved by the CEO, Zila Panchayat. It is
submitted that the petitioner has been restrained from performing his duties
by the impugned order on the basis of the same complaint. Learned counsel
for the petitioner further submitted that earlier fact-finding inquiry was also
concluded in favour of the petitioner, and a clean chit was given to him vide
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
06:14:55 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33160
3 WP-45113-2026
order dated 21.10.2026 (Annexure P/6).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the CEO,
Zila Panchayat, has not considered the facts and grounds mentioned in the
petitioner's reply/explanation and has rejected the same by passing a non-
speaking and unreasoned order, merely stating that the reply is not
satisfactory. Learned counsel further submitted that the controversy involved
in the present case has already been considered by the Division Bench in
W.A. No. 2278/2025 (Ritu Vyas vs. State of M.P. and others), decided on
24.11.2025.
6. It is further submitted that, as per Clause 6.2 of the policy dated
24.06.2025, the CEO, Zila Panchayat, is required to conduct a preliminary
inquiry into the matter before passing an order restraining the Gram Rojgar
Sahayak from performing his duties. However, without following the
aforesaid procedure and without considering the facts and grounds
mentioned in the petitioner's reply, the CEO, Zila Panchayat, has passed the
impugned order. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the
law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd.
and another v/s Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the CEO,
Zila Panchayat, has not assigned any reason in the impugned order as to why
the petitioner's reply/explanation was found unsatisfactory. It is submitted
that the petitioner could have availed the remedy of appeal before the
Collector if reasons had been assigned for rejecting his reply. Since no
reasons have been given in the impugned order, the petitioner has directly
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
06:14:55 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33160
4 WP-45113-2026
approached this Court by filing the present petition.
8. Per contra, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned
order and opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. It is submitted that a
detailed and reasoned order has been passed after considering the petitioner's
reply/explanation and that the order dated 30.09.2026 has been rightly
passed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of
filing an appeal before the Collector against the impugned order.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Important part of order dated 30.09.2026 is quoted herein below:-
"
उपरो वदुओं के आधार पर काया लयीन प
/ /2026/9342 ,
कमांक पंचा. को. िशका. मुरैना
10.9.2026 ,
दनांक से !ीमती प#ता रावत $ाम
,
पंचायत बधर &टा जनपद पंचायत कैलारस को
,
नो टस जार ) कया गया +जसका जवाब संबंिधत
,
के ,ारा #तुत कया गया +जसका अवलोकन
कए जाने पर जवाब के साथ कोई ठोस सा 2य
#तुत नह )ं कये जाने पर #तुत जवाब कसी भी
कार से संतोषजनक एवं समाधानकारक नह )ं
पाया गया है। उ िशकायत म & उ $ाम रोजगार
सहायक थम 78या दोषी है।
उ $ाम रोजगार सहायक का उ कृ :य उनके
पद )यदािय:व; के ित सजग न रहकर धोर
,
लापरवाह ) उदासीनता एवं उद <डता तथा व>ीय
अिनयिमतता को दिशत करता है।
,
अतः !ीमती प#ता रावत $ाम रोजगार
, ,
सहायक $ाम पंचायत बधर &टा जनपद पंचायत
कैलारस उ करण म & थम 7ABया दोषी पाये
जाने से आयु एवं सद #य सिचव काय काCरणी
सिमित म० ० रा Eय रोजगार गारंट ) प Cरषद
1122
भोपाल के प कमांक भोपाल दनाक
24.6.2025
के संल Fन $ाम रोजगार सहायक माग
-2025 -6 (4)
दिश का के बदु के तहत शासक Gय
काय से वरत कया जाता है। शासक Gय काय से
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
06:14:55 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33160
5 WP-45113-2026
वरत से उ $ाम रोजगार सहायक को िनधा Cरत
50
मानदेय का ितशत पा Cर!िमक ह ) ाH होगा।
शासक Gय काय से वरत क G अविध म & !ीमती
, ,
प#ता रावत $ाम रोजगार सहायक $ाम
पंचायत बधर &टा का मु Iयालय जनपद पंचायत
कैलारस म & रहेगा ।
"
उ J> आदेश त :काल भाव से लागू होगा।
11. From perusal of the impugned order issued by the Disciplinary
Authority dated 30.09.2026, it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority while
passing an order dated 30.09.2026 upon the petitioner, is exercising quasi
judicial power and even the quasi judicial order must be a speaking order.
The Disciplinary Authority must apply its mind to the entire facts and
circumstances and record valid and justifiable reason and all grounds in
support of its conclusion.
12. On perusal of the impugned order, it does not appear to be a
speaking one.
13. It is a settled position in law that when a discretion is vested in an
authority to exercise a particular power, the same is required to be exercised
with due diligence, and in reasonable and rational manner. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in catena of decisions has reiterated time and again the
necessity and importance of giving reasons by the authority in support of its
decision. It has been held that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial
authority or even by an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties
must speak. The affected party must know how his case or defence was
considered before passing the prejudicial order.
14. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab v/s. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
06:14:55 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33160
6 WP-45113-2026
relevant to quote. In the said decision it had been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that every decision of an administrative or executive nature
must be a composite and self-sustaining one, in that it should contain all the
reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his
conclusion.
15. In the same judgment in paragraph 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
clarifies that the Government does not have carte blanche to take any
decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced
decision. Its decision must be informed and impregnated with reasons.
Paragraph 7 of the said decision is quoted as under:-
“7. The same principle was upheld more recently in Ram Kishun
v. State of U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382.
However, we must hasten to clarify that the Government does not
have a carte blanche to take any decision it chooses to; it cannot
take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision
must be informed and impregnated with reasons.
This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of
this Court, including in Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N
Publications Ltd (1993) 1 SCC 445, Tata Cellular v. Union of
India (1994) 6 SCC 651, Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International
Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617, B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair
Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 548 and Jagdish Mandal v.
State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517” 31.
16. Also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v/s Masood Ahmed Khan and others
cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 highlights this point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in paragraph 15 opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi judicial
authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties,
must speak. It must not be like the inscrutable face of a sphinx. In paragraph
47 the Honb'le Supreme Court summarized its discussion. The relevant sub-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
06:14:55 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33160
7 WP-45113-2026
paragraphs of the said summary are quoted as under:-
“47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component
of a decisionmaking process as observing principles of natural
justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative
bodies.
(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 lifeblood 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.
(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 Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v.
Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University
of Oxford 2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA), wherein the Court referred
to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which
requires,“adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for
judicial decisions”.
17. The CEO, Zila Panchayat, has passed a non-speaking and
unreasoned order. The absence of reasons in the impugned order cannot be
cured by assigning reasons at the appellate stage. Since the CEO, Zila
Panchayat, has not disclosed the reasons for passing the impugned order
dated 30.09.2026, the petitioner is unable to effectively challenge the same
before the appellate authority. Therefore, the contention of learned
Government Advocate that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing
an appeal before the Collector is not sustainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case Oryx Fisheries Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors; (2010) 13 SCC
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
06:14:55 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33160
8 WP-45113-2026
427 has held as under:-
"41. In M/s Kranti Associates (supra), this Court after
considering various judgments formulated certain
principles in para 51 of the judgment which are set out
below
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.
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: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
06:14:55 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33160
9 WP-45113-2026
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
06:14:55 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33160
10 WP-45113-2026
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."
18. In view of the above discussions and the facts and circumstances
of the case, I am left with no choice but to set aside impugned order dated
30.09.2026 (Annexure P/1).
19. The petitioner is directed to submit a detailed representation/reply
to the show-cause notice dated 10.09.2026 (Annexure P/2), along with a
copy of the earlier inquiry report, before the CEO, Zila Panchayat, within ten
days from today. Thereafter, the CEO, Zila Panchayat, shall pass a detailed,
reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after granting the
personal opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the complainant,
within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The CEO, Zila Panchayat, shall also consider the earlier inquiry report while
passing the order.
20. However, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the case.
21. With aforesaid observations and directions, preset Writ Petition is
hereby disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
vpn/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
06:14:55 PM