Prashant Yadav vs Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. (Govt. Of Mp Undertaking)

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26253
1 WP-37431-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
st
ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 37431 of 2024
PRASHANT YADAV
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO.
LTD. (GOVT. OF MP UNDERTAKING) AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.P.Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rinkesh Goyal- Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking following relief(s):-
"i) That, the impugned ACR for the period from 01.04.2020 to
31.03.2021 which is recorded as 'C' by the Reporting Officer, may
kindly be quashed so also quash the decision of committee vide
Annexure - P/2, in the interest of justice.
ii) That, the respondents be commanded to consider the case of the
petitioner with regard to writing of ACR for the period from
01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 in view of the letter dated 29.12.2022
written by the Respondent no. 4 with a further to consider his past
ACRS, while writing the ACR for the period from 01.04.2020 to
31.03.2021, in the interest of justice.
iii) That, the respondents may kindly be further commanded to
extend the benefit of 3rd upgradation from the date of his
entitlement with a further to pay difference of arrears and the same
be paid alongwith interest @ 18%, per annum, in the interest of
justice.
iv) That, any other relief which is suitable in the facts and
circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner including the
costs throughout may also be granted."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
06:13:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26253
2 WP-37431-2024
initially appointed as a Junior Engineer in April, 1999 and has rendered his

services with sincerity and devotion. He was granted the benefit of first
upgradation on completion of 9 years of service and second upgradation on
completion of 18 years of service. Considering his performance and
seniority, he was also given charge of the post of Assistant Engineer and is
presently working as Assistant Engineer (In-charge). It is submitted that the
petitioner has an unblemished service record and his ACRs from 2010 to
2020 were graded as “Excellent”. However, for the year 2020-2021, the
reporting officer awarded him “C” grade. Neither the reviewing authority nor
the accepting authority made any adverse remark in respect of the said ACR.
Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner submitted a
representation against the aforesaid “C” grading, which was forwarded by
respondent No.7 v i d e letter dated 09.05.2022 with positive remarks.
Thereafter, comments were sought by respondent No.3 and the same were
furnished by respondent No.4 vide letter dated 29.12.2022. In the said
comments, the performance of the petitioner was appreciated and it was
specifically stated that no complaint had been received against him during
the relevant period. It is further submitted that despite the aforesaid
favourable comments and the petitioner’s past excellent ACRs, the
Committee, in its meeting held on 27.10.2023, mechanically rejected the
representation without considering the comments of respondent No.4 and the
overall service record of the petitioner. The Committee also failed to
properly consider the fact that the reviewing and accepting authorities had
not made any adverse remarks and had subsequently retired. The decision of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
06:13:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26253
3 WP-37431-2024
the Committee, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind and is non-

speaking. Learned counsel submitted that the “C” grading was recorded
mechanically without considering the actual performance of the petitioner
and has adversely affected his service career. In particular, the petitioner
completed 30 years of service in April, 2021, but the benefit of third
upgradation was granted to him only from April, 2022. The petitioner was
also not intimated that he had failed to secure the prescribed benchmark on
account of the ACR for the year 2020-2021. On these grounds, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the “C” grading recorded in the
ACR for the year 2020-2021 and the decision of the Committee rejecting the
petitioner’s representation are arbitrary, mechanical, non-speaking and
unsustainable and, therefore, deserve to be quashed.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that
the petitioner’s ACR for the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 was
graded as “C” by the Electricity Company and, against the said grading, the
petitioner preferred an appeal, which was considered by the competent
appellate authority after giving an opportunity of hearing and the “C”
grading was maintained. It is further submitted that the Review Committee,
in its meeting held on 27.10.2023, considered the service record and
performance of the petitioner and recorded the remark that the petitioner was
having average knowledge of S.T.M. work. It is submitted that the decision
was taken on the basis of the material available on record and the applicable
Circular No. 01-05/I/WC/143 dated 19.07.1990. Learned counsel submitted
that under Clause (xiv) of the aforesaid Circular, overall performance of an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
06:13:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26253
4 WP-37431-2024
employee is required to be considered for promotion/upgradation and,

accordingly, the petitioner was granted the benefit of third upgradation from
01.04.2022. It is submitted that Clause (xvi) also provides that where an
employee has been awarded punishment, his case is to be considered after
expiry of the punishment period. Thus, the benefit of third upgradation was
extended to the petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid Circular, subject
to the prescribed terms and conditions. Learned counsel further submitted
that the petitioner’s contention regarding his unblemished service record and
performance is incorrect. During his service, a show-cause notice was issued
to him in respect of serious allegations and he was also subjected to minor
punishment of “Censure” under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The appellate authority, after providing an
opportunity of hearing, passed a reasoned and speaking order maintaining the
punishment. It is further submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner
regarding mechanical recording of the ACR and non-consideration of his
performance are denied. The ACR, the decision of the Review Committee
and the appellate order were passed after considering the relevant material
and service record of the petitioner. The comments relied upon by the
petitioner do not efface the adverse material available against him. Learned
counsel submitted that the petitioner was granted the benefit of third
upgradation in accordance with the applicable Circular and after considering
his overall performance and service record. Therefore, there is no illegality
or deficiency on the part of the respondents in maintaining the “C” grading
or in granting the third upgradation from 01.04.2022. On these grounds,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
06:13:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26253
5 WP-37431-2024
learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petition discloses no

cause of action and none of the grounds raised by the petitioner is sustainable
in law. The petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. A copy of the report submitted by the Committee members is filed
as Annexure P-2, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-


करण म  ी
शांत यादव ारा
तुत क  गई अपील म  कोई वशेष

त य
तुत नह ं !कए गए ह # $जसके आधार पर कोई िनण *य िलया जा

सके अतः सिमित ारा ,रपो!ट.ग अिधकार ारा द गई ट प को ह मा /य
" " (
करते सी 0ेड रखे जाने का िनण *य िलया गया है। सेवािनवृ 6 होने
हुये

के कारण समी 7क एवं वीकृता* अिधका ,रय8 ारा कोई 0े!डंग
दान

नह ं क  गई थी।
6 . From perusal of the aforesaid report filed as Annexure P-2, it is
clear that the Committee, while considering the appeal preferred by the
petitioner, has merely observed that no special facts were presented by the
petitioner on the basis of which any decision could be taken and, therefore,
the remark of the Reporting Officer giving “C” grade was maintained.
However, no reasons have been assigned by the Committee as to why the
grounds raised by the petitioner were not acceptable. The Committee, while
passing the aforesaid order, was exercising quasi-judicial powers and even
quasi-judicial orders must be speaking orders. The Committee was required
to apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and record
valid and justifiable reasons or grounds in support of its conclusion. On
perusal of Annexure P-2, it does not appear to be a speaking order and,
therefore, the same cannot be sustained.
7. A copy of the letter dated 09.05.2022 (Annexure P-3) reads as
under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
06:13:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26253
6 WP-37431-2024

" 2020-21
वषयांतगत लेख है. !क अ ;ौहता7र वष म  एस.ट .एम. उप

संभाग अशोकनगर म 
बंधक चालू
कार पद पर पद थ था उस अविध

क  मेर गोपनीय च ,रBावली क  0े!डंग उपमहा
बंधक ी द पेश गौतम

ारा क  गई है। जब !क अ ;ौहता7रकता ने पूण लगन एवं मेहनत से

घोर कोरोना अविध म  लगातार संधारण काय * करवाया स Dलाई लगातार
2020-21
चालू रखी। अ ;ौहता7रकता का मत है !क उसे वष क  0!डंग

गलत तर के से बना त Eयो के आधार पर कम करके द गई है। अतः
2020-21
ह ;ौहता7रकता आपक  वष क  गोपनीय च ,रBावली क 
"
अपील
तुत कर रहा है।
8. From perusal of the contents of Annexure P-3, it is apparent that the
petitioner had preferred an appeal against the “C” grading, contending that
the grading for the year 2020-21 was lower than warranted in view of the
work performed by him during the relevant period. The said appeal was
forwarded by respondent No.7 vide letter dated 09.05.2022 with positive
remarks.
9. 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.
10. 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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
06:13:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26253
7 WP-37431-2024
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.
11. 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”.
12. Also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kranti Associates Private Limited 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-paragraphs of the said summary are quoted as under:-
"47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
06:13:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26253
8 WP-37431-2024
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 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.
(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.
(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 Harvard
Law Review 731-37].
(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

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
06:13:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26253
9 WP-37431-2024
was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija
v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, 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”.
(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”.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the
decision of the Committee taken in its meeting held on 27.10.2023,
contained in Annexure P-2, is a non-speaking order and has been passed
without assigning any cogent and valid reasons. Accordingly, the decision of
the Committee maintaining the “C” grading is hereby quashed.
1 4 . The matter is remanded back to the competent
authority/Committee to reconsider the petitioner’s appeal against the “C”
grading for the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 and pass a reasoned
and speaking order in accordance with law, keeping in view the comments
of respondent No.4 dated 29.12.2022, the petitioner’s past ACRs and the
material available on record. The petitioner shall submit a fresh and detailed
representation before the competent authority/Committee within a period of
one month from today, and the competent authority/Committee shall
consider the said fresh representation as well as the earlier representation(s)
submitted by the petitioner while reconsidering the matter. The aforesaid
exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of
personal hearing to the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
06:13:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26253
10 WP-37431-2024
15. Needless to say, if, upon such reconsideration, the petitioner is

found entitled to the benefit of third upgradation from an earlier date, the
consequential benefits, including arrears, shall also be extended to him in
accordance with law.
16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition
stands disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
AVI

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 03-Sep-26
06:13:31 PM