Brahm Kishore Dixit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
1
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
WRIT PETITION No. 23677 of 2021
BRAHM KISHORE DIXIT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Raghvendra Dixit – Advocate for petitioner.
Shri B.M. Patel – learned counsel for respondent/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 06.8.2026
Pronounced on : .01.09.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking following relief(s):
“i-That, the impugned orders (Ann. P/1 to P/3) passed by
respondents no. 2 to 4 may kindly be quashed.
That, cost and other relief which may deem fit may also be
granted.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is serving as an
Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Police Department and is presently posted at
Police Line, District Gwalior. It is further submitted that on the basis of a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
2
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
complaint published in the newspaper Daily Sandhya Sudarshan Express ,
petitioner and two other officials were placed under suspension and attached
to the Police Line, Gwalior, vide order dated 22.10.2018. Thereafter, a
charge-sheet dated 06.12.2018 was issued alleging that petitioner had
cooperated with Sub-Inspector Kripa Shankar Awasthi in his illegal act,
failed to report the incident to the superior officers and acted in violation of
Para 64(4) of the Police Regulations. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his
reply to the charge-sheet on 14.12.2018 and also sought certain documents
for the purpose of the departmental enquiry. The Superintendent of Police,
Gwalior, appointed the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer vide
order dated 29.12.2018 and the suspension of petitioner was subsequently
revoked. During the departmental enquiry, statements of the witnesses were
recorded and petitioner was afforded an opportunity to cross-examine them.
After conclusion of enquiry, a final show-cause notice dated 11.10.2019 was
issued on the basis of the enquiry report to which petitioner submitted his
reply on 24.10.2019. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the
impugned punishment order imposing the penalty of withholding one annual
increment with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the punishment order, the
petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before respondent No. 3 which
was dismissed vide order dated 24.06.2020. Thereafter, petitioner filed a
mercy petition before respondent No. 2, which was also dismissed vide
order dated 04.06.2021.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the Enquiry
Officer did not find any charge proved against petitioner except to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
3
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
limited extent that he failed to inform his superior officers about the
incident. The allegations relating to bribery and misconduct were found
proved only against Sub-Inspector Kripa Shankar Awasthi. Despite the
findings of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority imposed the same
punishment upon petitioner without assigning any valid reason. It is further
submitted that the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the
Enquiry Officer without recording reasons or following the procedure
prescribed under Rule 15(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. No fresh show-cause
notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to petitioner before imposing
the punishment. Thus, the impugned order is in violation of the principles of
natural justice. The punishment imposed upon petitioner is wholly
disproportionate. Although the serious charges were proved against Sub-
Inspector Kripa Shankar Awasthi and not against the petitioner yet both
were awarded the same punishment. The appellate and revisional authorities
failed to consider this material aspect and passed non-speaking orders.
That, the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority are contrary to the
enquiry report. The appellate and revisional authorities also failed to
consider the grounds raised by the petitioner and mechanically affirmed the
punishment. Therefore, it is prayed that the petition may be allowed and the
impugned orders may be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State submits that
departmental enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the
prescribed procedure after affording full opportunity of hearing to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
4
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner was charged with failing to
report the illegal act of Sub-Inspector Kripa Shankar Awasthi to the superior
authorities and for violation of the Police Regulations. The Enquiry Officer
found Charge No. 1 partly proved to the extent that petitioner failed to
inform his superior officers about the incident. The disciplinary authority
has rightly imposed the punishment of withholding one annual increment
with cumulative effect. Piqued, petitioner preferred a departmental appeal
and thereafter a mercy petition, both of which were rightly dismissed after
due consideration, affirming the punishment order. There is no violation of
Rule 15(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1966, or of the principles of natural justice, as petitioner was afforded
adequate opportunity during the departmental enquiry. It is further
submitted that the punishment order, as affirmed by the appellate and
revisional authorities, is legal, proper and based on the evidence available
on record. Hence, no interference by this Court is warranted.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The charges levelled against Sub Inspector Kripashanker Awasthi and
Brahm Kishore Dixit are quoted below for ready reference and convinience:
^^vkjksi
mi fujh{kd —ik'kadj voLFkh ds fo#) vf/kjksfir vkjksi&
1& fnukad&18&10&2018 dks çkr% 10%42 cts nqxkZ ekrk foltZu esa
jk;iqj rkykc ij fM;wVh gsrq jokuk fd;s tkus ds mijkar Fkkuk çHkkjh ds
laKku esa yk;s fcuk LosPNk iwoZd ,eih 07@lhch&2715 dh pSfdax djuk
rFkk vkpkj lafgrk dk Hk; fn[kkdj O;olk;h jfo vxzoky ds ikls j[ks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
5
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
nl yk[k :i;s esa ls rhu yk[k ¼300000@&½ :i;s vius ikl fcuk
fdlh fof/kor tIrh ds j[kuk rFkk f'kdk;r gksus ij vkosnd dks okil
dj lafnX/k vkpj.k çnf'kZr djukA
2& Fkkuk çHkkjh dks fcuk crk;s fM;wVh LFkku jk;iqj rkykc NksM+dj Vksy
cSfj;j ij igqapdj ogka VªSfQd Mk;oVZ gsrq yxs lmfu czEgfd'kksj
nhf{kr ,oa vkj{kd Hkkjr [k=h dks fu;e fo#) rjhds ls vius lkFk ys
tkdj okgu pSfdaxx dj LosPNkpkfjrk çnf'kZr djukA
3& inh; drZO;ksa dk nq#i;ksx dj Hkz"V vkpj.k çnf'kZr djukA
lmfu chå dså nhf{kr] ds fo#) vf/kjksfir vkjksi
1& fnukad&18&10&2018 dks mi fujh{kd —ik'kadj voLFkh ds voS/k —R;
esa lg;ksx dj lafnX/k vkpj.k çnf'kZr djuk rFkk ?kVukØe dh tkudkjh
ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa dks u nsukA
2& lmfu tSls ftEesnkj in ij jgrs gq;s ,oa fu;eksa dh tkudkjh gksrs
gq;s fnukad&18&10&18 dks mi fujh{kd —ik'kadj voLFkh ds voS/k vkns'k
dk ikyu dj iqfyl jsX;qys'ku ds iSjk Øå 64¼4½ ds foijhr dk;Z djukA
t‚pdrkZ vf/kdkjh }kjk vipkjh mfu0 —ik'kadj voLFkh ds fo#)
vkjksfir mä rhuksa vkjksi çekf.kr ik;s x;s rFkk vipkjh låmåfuå chå
dså nhf{kr ds fo#) vf/kjksfir vkjksi Øekad&01 izekf.kr ik;k x;k rFkk
vkjksi vkjksi Øekad&02 izekf.kr ugha ik;k x;kA^^
7. The relevant paras of impugned punishment order dated 28.11.2019
passed by the Disciplinary Authority is quoted below for ready reference
and convenience:
^^vipkjh lmfu chådsånhf{kr ds fo:) tk¡pdrkZ vf/kdkjh }kjk
vkjksi Øekad&1 ds va'kHkkx ^^?kVukØe dh tkudkjh ofj"B
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
6
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
vf/kdkfj;ksa dks u nsuk ^^tc çekf.kr ik;k x;k gS- rks mldk
vkjksih dekad 1 ds voS/k —R; esa lfEefyr gksuk LokHkkfod gS
rFkk mldh ?kVuk LFky ij mifLFkfr Hkh çekf.kr gSA lkFk gh
vipkjh ds }kjk çLrqr tokc esa ,sls dksbZ uohu rF;
mYysf[kr ugha fd;s x;s gSa] ftlls mlds fo:) vkjksi dk
çekf.kr va'kHkkx çHkkfor gksrk gks A vr% çLrqr tokc lek/kkudkjd
ugha gSA
vr% foHkkxh; t‚p uLrh ,oa vkjksihx.k mi fujhå —ik'kadj
voLFkh ,oa lmfu chådsånhf{kr }kjk çLrqr tokc ds v/;;u mijkar
muds fo:) çekf.kr ik;s x;s vkjksiksa dh xaHkhjrk dks /;ku esa j[krs
gq, vkjksihx.k mi fujhå —ik'kadj voLFkh ,oa lmfu chådsånhf{kr
dks ^^,d&,d osruo`f) ds cjkcj jkf'k dh deh la;ph çHkko
ls fd;s tkus^^ ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tkrk gSA mi fujhå —
ik'kadj voLFkh ,oa lmfu chådså nhf{kr dh fuyacu vof/k fnukad
23-10-18 ls 18-12-18 rd fuyacu esa 'kqekj dh tkrh gSA bl vof/k esa
vkjksihx.k tks çkIr dj pqds gSa] mlds vfrfjä dqN Hkh ns; ugha
gksxk A^^
8. Perusal of record reveals that petitioner was serving as an Assistant
Sub-Inspector in the Police Department and was posted at Police Line,
District Gwalior. On the basis of a complaint published in the newspaper
Daily Sandhya Sudarshan Express , petitioner and two other officials were
placed under suspension and attached to Police Line, Gwalior, vide order
dated 22.10.2018. Charge-sheet dated 06.12.2018 was issued against
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
7
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
petitioner alleging that he had cooperated with Sub-Inspector Kripa Shankar
Awasthi in his illegal act, failed to inform his superior officers about the
incident and acted in violation of Para 64(4) of the Police Regulations.
Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 14.12.2018 and also
sought certain documents for the purpose of the departmental enquiry. It is
evident from the record that the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior,
appointed the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer vide order dated
29.12.2018. The suspension of petitioner was thereafter revoked. During the
departmental enquiry, statements of the witnesses were recorded and
petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine them. After
completion of the enquiry, a final show-cause notice dated 11.10.2019 was
issued to petitioner along with the copy of enquiry report. Petitioner
submitted his reply on 24.10.2019. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority
passed the impugned order imposing the penalty of withholding one annual
increment with cumulative effect. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal
which was dismissed by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 24.06.2020.
Being aggrieved, petitioner submitted mercy petition before respondent No.
2 which was also dismissed vide order dated 04.06.2021.
9. On careful perusal of the enquiry report, it is found that the Enquiry
Officer did not find the main allegations against the petitioner proved. The
allegation relating to bribery and misconduct was found proved against Sub-
Inspector Kripa Shankar Awasthi. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the
Enquiry Officer found only that he had failed to inform his superior officers
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
8
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
about the incident. Despite the aforesaid finding of the Enquiry Officer, the
disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of withholding one annual
increment with cumulative effect upon the petitioner. However, no proper
reason has been assigned for differing from the findings of the Enquiry
Officer. It is also clear from the record that the disciplinary authority, while
differing from the findings of the Enquiry Officer, did not follow the
procedure contemplated under Rule 15(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. No fresh
opportunity was given to petitioner to explain the proposed disagreement
before the punishment was imposed. The punishment imposed upon the
petitioner also appears to be disproportionate, particularly when the serious
allegations relating to bribery and misconduct were found proved against
Sub-Inspector Kripa Shankar Awasthi and not against the petitioner. Despite
this distinction, the same punishment was imposed upon both. The appellate
and revisional authorities have also not properly considered the aforesaid
material aspects and have mechanically affirmed the punishment imposed
upon the petitioner. Their orders do not deal with the specific grounds raised
by the petitioner and therefore, the orders cannot be said to be reasoned and
speaking orders.
10. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the
punishment imposed upon the petitioner can be sustained when the Enquiry
Officer itself found that the serious allegations relating to bribery and
misconduct were proved against co-delinquent Sub-Inspector Kripa Shankar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
9
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
Awasthi, whereas, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, only the
allegation of failure to inform his superior officers about the incident was
found proved. Despite this material distinction in the nature and gravity of
the misconduct and the respective role of the two delinquent employees, the
same punishment of withholding one annual increment with cumulative
effect was imposed upon both.
11. The Enquiry Officer found the allegations of bribery and misconduct
proved against Sub-Inspector Kripa Shankar Awasthi. However, against the
petitioner, the Enquiry Officer found only that he had failed to inform his
superior officers about the incident. The serious allegation of bribery was
not found proved against the petitioner.
12. Despite this clear difference, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the
same punishment of withholding one annual increment with cumulative
effect upon both employees. The order does not give any proper reason why
a person against whom the serious allegation of bribery was proved and a
person against whom only failure to report the incident was proved should
receive the same punishment.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2013) 3 SCC 73 , has held that the principle of equality also
applies between co-delinquents. The punishment should be considered by
comparing the involvement of the employees in the same incident. A person
who has committed a more serious act cannot be given a lesser punishment
while a person having a lesser role is given a more severe punishment.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
10
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
14. The same principle has been applied by the Karnataka High Court in
Sri M.S. Kadkol v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No.110912/2017 (S-KAT) ,
decided on 31.01.2022. In that case, two employees were involved in the
same incident and both were given the punishment of compulsory
retirement. However, one employee had played the main and active role,
while the role of the petitioner was only passive. The Karnataka High Court
held that the two employees could not be treated alike when their roles were
materially different. The Court held that treating two unequals equally in the
matter of punishment violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The
punishment imposed upon the petitioner was therefore set aside and the
matter was sent back for reconsideration of a lesser punishment.
15. The facts of the present case are similar. Here also, the main
allegation of bribery and misconduct was proved against the co-delinquent,
whereas the petitioner was found guilty only of failing to inform his
superior officer. Therefore, the petitioner had a much lesser role in the
incident.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also explained in Administrator,
Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M. Lad, (2010) 5
SCC 775, that while deciding the punishment, the authority has to consider
several factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct, the nature of
duties, the responsibility of the employee and other relevant circumstances.
Therefore, the role and responsibility of each delinquent employee are
important while deciding punishment.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
11
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
17. Similarly, in the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v.
Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372 , the Supreme Court held that parity in
punishment can be claimed where the employees are similarly placed. At the
same time, where their role, responsibility or conduct is different, those
differences have to be considered while deciding the punishment.
18. Thus, merely because two employees were involved in the same
incident or were proceeded against in the same departmental enquiry does
not mean that they must necessarily receive the same punishment. Their
individual role, responsibility and degree of misconduct have to be
considered separately.
19. In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider this
important difference. The petitioner was not found guilty of the main act of
bribery or misconduct. Nevertheless, he was given the same punishment as
the employee against whom those serious allegations were proved. This
Court is conscious that normally the High Court does not interfere with the
punishment imposed in a departmental enquiry. However, interference is
justified where the punishment is clearly disproportionate or where the
authority has failed to consider a relevant and important circumstance.
20. In the present case, the difference in the role of the petitioner and the
co-delinquent was a very important circumstance. The disciplinary
authority, appellate authority and revisional authority failed to properly
consider it. Their orders therefore cannot be sustained.
21. There is also another serious defect in the matter. The Enquiry Officer
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
12
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
did not find the main allegations against the petitioner proved. The
Disciplinary Authority differed from the Enquiry Officer but did not follow
the procedure under Rule 15(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and did not give the
petitioner a proper opportunity to explain the proposed disagreement.
22. Therefore, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner suffers from
both procedural illegality and disproportionality. The petitioner cannot be
treated in the same manner as the co-delinquent when his role and proved
misconduct were substantially lesser.
23. The Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri M.S. Kadkol (supra) has
held as under:
21. Based on the finding in the departmental enquiry the
appointing authority has decided to impose a penalty of
compulsory retirement. Then the question is, to what extent the
High Court can interfere in the decision taken by the
appointing authority in punishing the delinquent employee?
Law in this regard is more than well settled is an
understatement. The ratio laid down in the case of Union of
India and Others vs.P.Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC
610 and the ratio laid down in the judgments cited by the
learned Government Advocate for the respondents, needs to be
borne in mind while considering the legality of punishment
imposed.
22. In terms of the ratio laid down in the judgments referred
above, the High Court can interfere with the quantum of
punishment imposed only in a situation where the punishment
shocks the conscience of the Court or if it is disproportionate to
the offence committed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
13
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
23. The disciplinary authority while punishing the petitioner
has exercised the powers vested under Rule 8 of the Karnataka
Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1957. The said Rule would read
as under:
“8. Nature of penalties.- One or more of the
following penalties for good and sufficient reasons
and as hereinafter provided, may be imposed on
Government servants, namely.-
(i) Fine in the case of Government servants
belonging to State Civil Services, Group-D;
(ii) Censure;
(iii) "Withholding of increments;
(iii-a) Withholding of promotion"
(iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any
pecuniary loss caused by negligence or breach of
orders to the State Government or the Central
Government, any other State Government, any
person, body or authority, to whom the service of
the Officer had been lent;
(iv-a) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale
of pay for a period with a specific direction as to
whether or not the Government servant will earn
increments of pay during the period of such
reduction with reference to the reduced pay or
whether the pay shall remain constant and with a
further direction whether on the expiry of the
period of penalty the reduction will or will not
have the effect of postponing the future increments
of his pay;
(v) "Reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade,
post or service which shall, unless otherwise
directed, be a bar to the promotion of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
14
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
Government servant to the time scale of pay,
grade, post or service from which he was reduced,
with or without further directions regarding:-
(a) Seniority and pay in the scale of pay, grade,
post or service to which the Government servant is
reduced;
(b) Conditions of restoration to the scale of pay
grade or post of service from which the
Government servant was reduced and his seniority
and pay on such restoration to that scale of pay,
grade, post or service;
(vi) Compulsory retirement;
(vii) Removal from service which shall not be a
disqualification for future employment;
(viii) Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily
be a disqualification for future employment:
[Provided that in the absence of special and
adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned
in the order of the disciplinary authority, no
penalty other than those specified in clauses (vi) to
(viii) shall be imposed for an established charge of
corruption.]
[Explanation 1.-For purposes of this proviso the
expression "corruption" shall have the meaning
assigned to the expression "Criminal misconduct
by a public servant" in section 13 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act
49 of 1988).]
[Explanation 2.-The following shall not amount to
a penalty within the meaning of this rule:-
(i) Withholding of increments of a Government
servant for failure to pass a departmental
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
15
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
examination in accordance with the rules or
orders governing the Service or post or the terms
of his appointment;
(ii) Stoppage of a Government servant at the
efficiency bar in the time scale on the ground of
his unfitness to cross the bar;
(iii) Non-promotion, whether in a substantive or
officiating capacity, of a Government servant,
after consideration of his case, to a Service, grade
or post for promotion to which he is eligible;
(iv) Reversion to a lower Service, grade or post of
a Government servant officiating in a higher
Service, grade or post on the ground that he is
considered, after trial to be unsuitable for such
higher Service, grade or post or on administrative
grounds unconnected with his conduct (such as the
return of the permanent incumbent from leave or
deputation, availability of a more suitable officer
and the like);
(v) Reversion to his permanent Service, grade or
post of a Government servant appointed on
probation to another Service, grade or post during
or at the end of the period of probation in
accordance with the terms of his appointment or
the rules and orders governing probation:
(vi) Compulsory retirement of a Government
servant in accordance with the provision relating
to his superannuation or retirement;
(vii) Termination of services:-
(a) Of a person employed under an agreement, in
accordance with the terms of such agreement; or
(b) Of a Government servant appointed in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
16
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
probation, during or at the end of the period of his
probation, in accordance with the terms of his
appointment or the rules and orders governing
such probation; or
(c) Of a temporary Government servant in
accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (1) of
Rule 5 of the Karnataka State Civil Services
(Temporary Services) Rules, 1967.”
24. The expression ‘One or more of the following penalties for
good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, may be
imposed on Government servants, namely’ on plain reading
seems to suggest that the power on the disciplinary authority is
very wide. However, it is to be borne in mind that every wide
power has its own inherent or inbuilt limitations. The
limitations may be either express or implied. When it comes to
provisions dealing with the power to impose a penalty
conferring power to impose any one or more of the wide range
of penalties provided in the provisions, as found in Rule 8
referred above, then the limitation on the exercise of such power
is to be read into the provisions keeping in the mind the doctrine
of proportionality of punishment. Merely because statute invests
the authority with the power to choose any of the several
prescribed punishments, it cannot be said that the authority has
the unfettered power to impose any of the prescribed
punishments. When the statute confers a wide range of choices
while imposing punishment, the authority imposing punishment
should exercise discretion with utmost caution. While the
authority is deciding on the punishment, the doctrine of
proportionality should be the background score till the exercise
is completed. If punishment imposed is disproportionate to the
offence alleged, then it violates the right guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
25. The expression ‘good and sufficient reasons’ found in rule 8
referred to above, is an express limitation imposed on the power
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
17
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
that unerringly leads to the conclusion that the punishment
imposed necessarily has to be, proportionate to the offence
committed, logical and convincing.
26. From the records, it is apparent that delinquent government
official No.1 in the departmental enquiry paid Rs.50/- to the
petitioner. Admittedly, the demand of Rs.150/- for dispatching
the file of Mr Chandragiri was made by delinquent No.1. The
complainant has not paid any amount to the petitioner.
Admittedly, the petitioner did not demand money from the
complainant. From the finding arrived at by the enquiry officer,
it is apparent that the role of the petitioner was passive. It is
only delinquent No.1 who played an active role in demanding
the bribe. It is also not forthcoming from the evidence that the
petitioner demanded the bribe from delinquent No.1. It is not
even alleged by the complainant that the petitioner demanded
the money. Moreover, it is borne out from the record that no
work of the complainant was pending with the petitioner. It is
also an admitted fact that the complaint is not lodged against
the petitioner. The PW1-the complainant in his evidence has not
stated anything against the petitioner. No word is uttered by the
complainant about the role of the present petitioner. The entire
evidence of the complainant was against DGO-1 H.R.Naikar.
Nevertheless, the fact that the petitioner has received Rs.50/-
from DGO No.1 is admitted by the petitioner. The circumstances
under which the money is received as stated earlier, facts that
the money was traced in the socks worn by the petitioner by
themselves speak a few things which can be easily termed as
misconduct. And this misconduct cannot escape punishment.
What would be the appropriate punishment for this misconduct?
Though it is not for the high court to decide on the quantum of
punishment, the high court can nevertheless review the quantum
on the doctrine of proportionality. If punishment imposed is
disproportionate to the misconduct or if it shocks the
conscience of the Court same can be interdicted as held in the
case of Ranjit Thakur v/s. Union of India. (1987) 4 SCC 611
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
18
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
27. Does the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on
the petitioner pass the test of doctrine of proportionality is the
question? As noted above, the complaint was against DGO-1.
The trap laid was intended to catch DGO-1. Petitioner was
found with part of the tainted money in the circumstances
already discussed supra. Both delinquent employees are found
guilty and have been retired compulsorily. However, what is
strikingly evident is role and involvement of both differed
significantly. Under these circumstances, the question is
whether the punishment to both the employees should be the
same or should it differ? The main accused against whom the
complaint is filed has met with the punishment of compulsory
retirement. When the present petitioner whose role appears to
be extremely passive in the entire episode and more particularly
in a situation where there is no complaint against the petitioner,
he could not have been saddled with the same punishment
imposed on another delinquent employee against whom there
was a complaint regarding the demand for illegal gratification
of Rs.150/-.
28. In the backdrop of these facts and discussions referred
above on the scope and ambit of rule 8 of Karnataka Civil
Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1957 referred above, this Court finds
that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the
petitioner is disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the
offence. The said punishment treats the offence committed by
the present petitioner on par with the offence committed by
DGO-1 despite circumstances that are glaringly different.
29. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajendra Yadav
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 3 SCC 73, has held that if
the role of a person in the commission of an offence is less and
passive in comparison with another playing an active role in its
commission, then the person playing lesser role should not be
imposed higher penalty than the one imposed on a person
whose role and involvement is active. The logical corollary of
the said ratio would mean punishment should be imposed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
19
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
considering the involvement of the accused in the commission of
the offence. Applying the said ratio, the petitioner whose
involvement in the commission of the offence is extremely
passive, awarding the same punishment as awarded on
delinquent government official No.1 who is the main accused,
does not stand to reason. The involvement of the petitioner in
the commission of the offence in comparison to the involvement
of DGO-1 is significantly less. Thus, two un equals have been
treated equally by imposing the same penalty. This violates the
protection guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. If the administrative action of punishment imposed,
violates rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the constitution
of India and the court finds it discriminatory and irrational then
the order of punishment needs to be set aside in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226. It is also borne out from the
record that the petitioner was having 15 years of service as on
the date of compulsory retirement. Thus this Court is of the view
that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. This Court
has come to this conclusion keeping in mind the involvement of
the petitioner in the entire episode discussed supra. Since the
punishment imposed violates, the fundamental right guaranteed
to the petitioner, this Court would step in and exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and set aside the
order of penalty of compulsory retirement.
30. It is the well-settled proposition of law that the Court cannot
decide on the quantum of punishment to be awarded. This
power exclusively lies with the appointing authority. The court
can only say whether the punishment is disproportionate to the
offence committed. If it is shockingly disproportionate then the
Court can only remit the matter back to the disciplinary
authority to enable it to impose appropriate punishment which
necessarily has to be less than the punishment imposed earlier
which is interdicted by this Court.
31. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner’s
service record is tainted. As already observed the petitioner’s
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
20
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is violated.
By setting aside the penalty of compulsory retirement, the
matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to decide on the
quantum of punishment to be imposed on the petitioner. The
remaining portion of the impugned orders is upheld.
32. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. Order
dated 01.06.2016 in Application No.5791/2004 passed by the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal is set aside. The finding
dated 14.08.2003 returned by the enquiry officer on the charges
on the petitioner is confirmed. The punishment of compulsory
retirement imposed on the petitioner under order bearing
No.---- 231 ---- 2001, ---- dated 07.09.2004 is set aside and the
matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to pass
appropriate order of punishment on the petitioner, which
necessarily has to be lesser than the punishment imposed in
terms of order dated 07.09.2004 in the light of what is discussed
above.
33. Since the disciplinary enquiry was initiated in the year
2002, the disciplinary authority shall pass the appropriate
order of punishment within two months from the date of receipt
of the copy of the order. No order as to cost.
24. The Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh and others reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73 has held as under:

9. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally
placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons
who have been found guilty can also claim equality of
treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing
punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident.
Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when
punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be
disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
21
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident.
The disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment which is
disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for serious offences and
stringent punishment for lesser offences.

10. The principle stated above is seen applied in a few
judgments of this Court. The earliest one is DG of Police v. G.
Dasayan [(1998) 2 SCC 407 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 557] wherein
one Dasayan, a police constable, along with two other
constables and one Head Constable were charged for the same
acts of misconduct. The disciplinary authority exonerated two
other constables, but imposed the punishment of dismissal from
service on Dasayan and that of compulsory retirement on the
Head Constable. This Court, in order to meet the ends of
justice, substituted the order of compulsory retirement in place
of the order of dismissal from service on Dasayan, applying the
principle of parity in punishment among co-delinquents. This
Court held that it may, otherwise, violate Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
11. In Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah case [(2006) 6 SCC
548 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1486] the workman was dismissed from
service for proved misconduct. However, few other workmen,
against whom there were identical allegations, were allowed to
avail of the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme. In such
circumstances, this Court directed that the workman also be
treated on the same footing and be given the benefit of
voluntary retirement from service from the month on which the
others were given the benefit.
12. We are of the view that the principle laid down in the
abovementioned judgments would also apply to the facts of the
present case. We have already indicated that the action of the
disciplinary authority imposing a comparatively lighter
punishment on the co-delinquent Arjun Pathak and at the same
time, harsher punishment on the appellant cannot be permitted
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
22
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
in law, since they were all involved in the same incident.
Consequently, we are inclined to allow the appeal by setting
aside the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the
appellant and order that he be reinstated in service forthwith.
The appellant is, therefore, to be reinstated from the date on
which Arjun Pathak was reinstated and be given all
consequential benefits as were given to Arjun Pathak. Ordered
accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.
25. It is apposite to take note of the test laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court for the purpose of deciding similarity of charges and proportionality
of punishment. In the case of Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and
Nagar Haveli Vs. Gulabhia M. Lad (2010) 5 SCC 775 it was laid down as
under:-
“14. The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising
power of judicial review, the High Court or a Tribunal cannot
interfere with the discretion exercised by the Disciplinary
Authority, and/or on appeal the Appellate Authority with regard
to the imposition of punishment unless such discretion suffers
from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that
would shock the conscience of the Court/Tribunal . The
exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the
Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority is dependent on
host of factors such as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the
nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the
position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and
the discipline required to be maintained in the department or
establishment he works. Ordinarily the Court or a Tribunal
would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.
15. In a matter of imposition of punishment where joint
disciplinary enquiry is held against more than one delinquent,
the same or similarity of charges is not decisive but many
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
23
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
factors as noticed above may be vital in decision making. A
single distinguishing feature in the nature of duties or degree of
responsibility may make difference insofar as award of
punishment is concerned. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings
and overlapping adducing of evidence, a joint enquiry may be
conducted against all the delinquent officers but imposition of
different punishment on proved charges may not be
impermissible if the responsibilities and duties of the co-
delinquents differ or where distinguishing features exist. In such
a case, there would not be any question of selective or invidious
discrimination.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
26. The Apex Court in case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs.
Rajendra Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372 has held as under:
“ 19.3 Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases
where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of
the court.
19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4
above, would be in those cases where the codelinquent is
awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even
when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-
delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be
on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee
concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However,
there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in
respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after
the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent
accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified
apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
24
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
27. It cannot be doubted that the imposition of punishment depends upon
nature and duties of each delinquent employee, role allegedly played by
them, gravity of charges, loss caused, past record etc. If there is similarity of
allegations which was established in the enquiry, the punishment should be
similar and commensurate to the misconduct. If the charges established
against delinquent employees are similar and some of them are inflicted
with severe punishment whereas others were put to a comparatively
advantageous position, it will be a fit case for interference by the Court in
exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
28. With regard to parity in the matter of punishment with co-delinquents,
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pawan Kumar Agarwala Vs. General
Manager-II and Appointing Authority, State Bank of India and others
reported in (2015) 15 SCC 184, has held as under:
“17. The charge-sheet was issued on 28-10-2004 against the
appellant making 6 allegations against him and it is undisputed
fact that list of witnesses and the copies of the documents were
not furnished to the appellant. Further, the disciplinary
authority has reversed the findings on Charges 3 and 5 without
giving an opportunity to the appellant to show cause in the
matter, and thereafter, the order of removal was passed by the
appointing authority on the advice of the CVO vide his opinion
dated 1-2-2006 and further it is brought on record that
similarly placed person, namely, Mr Pradeep Kumar Das, the
Manager of Hallydayganj Branch, who has loaned the loan to
one Mr Tapan Kumar Sangma, in his case they have imposed
lesser punishment of withholding on increment thereby making
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
25
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
discrimination in differently treating the appellant herein,
which is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
29. Having carefully gone through the enquiry report as it is not a case of
misappropriation or siphoning of funds on the part of the petitioner, the
punishment awarded to petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the guilt
of petitioner and it deserves to be set aside as discriminatory attitude has
been adopted by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate
Authority.
30. This Court is conscious of the fact that the High Court, while
exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, while
dealing with disciplinary proceedings, should restrict itself to the
Wednesbury Test and not interfere in the orders of a disciplinary authority,
which is quasi-judicial in nature, unless the punishment imposed is grossly
disproportionate to the charges levelled. In the present case, the disparity in
imposition of punishments would require judicial review.
31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs Union of
India reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 has held as under:
“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a
review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of
judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives
fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the
authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court.
When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a
public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine
whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether
rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
26
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority
entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power
and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that
finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical
rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined
therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority
accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support
therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the
delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in
its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority
to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own
independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may
interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the
delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of
natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the
mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by
the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the
conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would
have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the
conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it
appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where
appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive
power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of
punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal
evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant.
Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be
permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union
of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364 :
(1964) 1 LLJ 38] this Court held at p. 728 that if the
conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the
disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error
on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ
of certiorari could be issued.”
32. Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to examining the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
27
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
fairness and legality of the inquiry, not re-appreciating evidence like an
appellate court. The Court may interfere only where there is violation of
natural justice, statutory rules, no evidence, perversity, or patent error in the
findings. The disciplinary authority is generally the sole judge of facts.
33. Having considered the record and the submissions made by both
sides, this Court finds that the Enquiry Officer found the serious allegations
of bribery and misconduct proved against the co-delinquent Sub-Inspector
Kripa Shankar Awasthi. So far as the petitioner is concerned, only the
allegation that he failed to inform his superior officers about the
incident was found proved. Thus, the role of the petitioner was clearly
lesser than that of the Sub-Inspector. Despite this difference, the same
punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect was
imposed upon both. The Disciplinary Authority also differed from the
findings of the Enquiry Officer without following the procedure under
Rule 15(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The appellate and revisional authorities
also failed to consider these material aspects. In view of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Yadav (supra) , the punishment
imposed upon co-delinquents has to bear a reasonable relationship with their
respective roles and gravity of misconduct. A person having a lesser role
cannot be subjected to the same or a harsher punishment than the
person whose role and misconduct were more serious. Therefore, the
punishment imposed upon the petitioner cannot be sustained and the matter
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
28
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
deserves to be reconsidered by the competent authority in accordance with
law. In these circumstances, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner
cannot be sustained. The matter, therefore, deserves to be sent back to the
Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration of the punishment.
34. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part and disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The punishment order dated 28.11.2019, appeal rejection
order dated 24.06.2020 and the order dated 04.06.2021 passed
in the mercy petition, insofar as they relate to the punishment
imposed upon the petitioner, are hereby quashed;
(ii) The matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to
reconsider the punishment of the petitioner and to pass a fresh,
reasoned and speaking order, after giving the petitioner an
opportunity of hearing and following the procedure prescribed
under the Rules;
(iii) While reconsidering the punishment, the Disciplinary
Authority shall take into consideration that the role of the
petitioner was lesser than that of co-delinquent Sub-Inspector
Kripa Shankar Awasthi. The serious allegations of bribery and
misconduct were found proved against the said Sub-Inspector,
whereas only the failure to inform the superior officers was
found proved against the petitioner;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26110
29
W.P. No. 23677 of 2021
(iv) In view of the difference in the role and gravity of
misconduct, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, if any,
shall necessarily be lesser than the punishment imposed upon
co-delinquent Sub-Inspector Kripa Shankar Awasthi;
(v) The fresh order shall be passed within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;
(vi) This Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the
exact punishment to be imposed upon the petitioner. The same
shall be decided by the Disciplinary Authority in accordance
with law and in the light of the observations made above; and
(vii) Pending interlocutory application, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
35. Pending interlocutory application, if any, are disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT )
JUDGE
Ahmad
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 9/1/2026
6:25:21 PM