Arvind Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33491
1 WP-42980-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
nd
ON THE 2 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 42980 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC030281612025
ARVIND RAJPUT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav -Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.M.Patel - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
Present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has
been filed seeking the following relief (s):-
"i. That, it may be declared that petitioner is entitled for
extension of benefit of Annual Increment upon
completion of probation period.
ii. That, Respondent department may kindly be directed
to extend the benefit of increment of year 2016-17,
2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20.
iii. That, Respondent department be directed to re-fix
the salary granting benefit of increment and
difference/arrears thereon be paid along with interest."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the controversy involved
in the present case has already been decided by Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 06.10.2025 passed in W.P. No. 11015/2023 (Arjun
Singh Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P. and others).
3 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33491
2 WP-42980-2025
impugned order and opposed the prayer made by the petitioner, however, he
is not able to distinguish that the aforesaid case is not identical to the present
case.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Arjun Singh Bhadoriya (supra) reads as under;
"Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated
30/7/2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no.3,
whereby, punishment of bringing him down to basic of pay
scale for two years has been imposed upon him on account of
certain misconduct found proved against him. The petitioner
has also challenged the orders dated 19/4/2022 (Annexure
P/2), 13/11/2022 (Annexure P/3) & 27/3/2023 (Annexure
P/4), whereby, his appeals have been dismissed by
respondent no.1 & 2.
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that
petitioner was initially appointed as Guard and at the relevant
time was posted at District Jail, Sheopur. He proceeded for
four days leave on medical/personal work on 4/8/2017.
However, he did not resume his duty on 9/8/2017 and
remained absent till 5/11/2017.
3. The records reveal that the petitioner was required to
participate in passing out parade and convocation ceremony
to be held on 4/10/2017 at Motilal Nehru Stadium, Bhopal.
Necessary instructions in this regard were issued from the
Police Headquarter, Bhopal on 4/9/2017 and 8/9/2017.
Further, the petitioner was directed to be relieved by
Headquarter, Bhopal vide memo dated 11/9/2017. In
compliance with the instructions issued by the Headquarter,
Bhopal, the Superintendent of Central Jail, Gwalior directed
the Superintendent of District Jail, Sheopur to relieve the
petitioner vide memo dated 6/9/2017 and 11/9/2017.
Accordingly, the petitioner was relieved from District Jial,
Sheopur on 7/9/2017 and 13/9/2017 for joining passing out
parade and convocation ceremony. However, since the
petitioner was absent from duty, he did not participate in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33491
3 WP-42980-2025
passing out parade and convocation ceremony. The petitioner
thereafter, resumed duty on 6/11/2017.
4. In connection with his remaining absent from passing out
parade and convocation ceremony on 4/10/2017, the
petitioner was issued a chargesheet vide memo dated
8/11/2017 (Annexure P/6). Following charge was levelled
against the petitioner:-
“
अपचार कम चार पर आरोप है क जेल मु यालय भोपाल के प
14852/ /17 24/10/2017
क० िशण भोपाल दनांक के अंतग त
4/10/2017
अपचार कम चार कत "य से गैरहा $जर होकर दनांक
को आयो $जत पािसंग आउट परेड म ( जेल मु यालय म )यदेश
भोपाल के आदेश के पालन म ( उप $*थत न होकर िस ,वल सेवा
1965 03
आचरण िनयम के िनयम के उप िनयम . का उ /लंघन कर
अपने आपको अनुशासना 1मक काय वाह के िलये 1य 2प से
”
उ 3रदाये बनाया है।
5. The petitioner submitted his reply to charge-sheet on
24/11/2017 (Annexure P/7) and denied the charge. He stated
that his absence from duty was not willful and because of
serious illness he could not resume duty on 9/8/2017. It was
his submission that he sent the intimation of his illness
through co-employee -Jitendra Singh Kaurav on 28/8/2017,
who in turn, intimated about the same to one Pappu Lal
Batham working as Chief Jail Warden of District Jail,
Sheopur. He also stated that he did not receive any intimation
regarding passing out parade and convocation ceremony
from Police Headquarter or from District Jail, Sheopur.
6. The petitioner's reply, since was not found satisfactory, a
regular departmental enquiry was directed in furtherance of
which Assistant Jail Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Vijaypur was
appointed as enquiry officer and Chief Jail Warden, Chief
Jail, Vijaypur was appointed as presenting officer.
7. Another co-employee namely Sanjay Kumar Shejwar who
was also absent in the same manner and enquiry was directed
to be conducted against him also on the similar charge. The
enquiry officer conducted the enquiry, wherein, five
prosecution witnesses were examined in addition to the
documentary evidence, in support of the charge. The
petitioner was given opportunity to cross-examine these
witnesses. The petitioner also examined witnesses in his
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33491
4 WP-42980-2025
defence. After conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the
enquiry officer submitted his report alongwith enquiry record
to the Office of respondent no.3 on 16/4/2018. As per the
report, the charge was found proved against the petitioner.
8. The respondent no.3, being the disciplinary authority,
prima facie concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer
and issued a show caused notice to the petitioner on 9/6/2017
(Annexure P/8), whereby, the copy of the enquiry report was
forwarded to him and he was asked to give his explanation to
the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. The petitioner
gave his explanation on 6/7/2018 (Annexure P/10), which
was received in the office of respondent no.3 on 26/7/2018.
Considering the explanation given by the petitioner as also
the evidence collected during the course of enquiry,
respondent no.3 found the charge established against the
petitioner. Accordingly, vide order dated 30/7/2018
(Annexure P/1), the punishment of reduction to minimum of
pay scale for a period of 2 years was imposed upon the
petitioner. The period of absence of the petitioner was treated
as leave without pay.
9. Being aggrieved by the punishment order, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before respondent no.2, which was
dismissed vide order dated 13/4/2022 (Annexure P/2) on the
ground of delay inasmuch as the appeal was filed after lapse
of about three and half years as against the period of
limitation of 45 days. The petitioner, thereafter, challenged
the punishment order before respondent no.1. The second
appeal also suffered dismissal vide order dated 13/12/2022
(Annexure P/3). Further appeal filed by the petitioner before
respondent no.1 also got dismissed on 27/3/2023 as not
maintainable. Challenging these orders, the petitioner has
filed the present writ petition.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the
impugned orders on the ground that the authorities
completely failed to appreciate the defence taken by the
petitioner. It is his submission that the allegation of
petitioner’s unauthorized absence was not the subject matter
of charge, and therefore, the enquiry officer erroneously
recorded finding with regard to his unauthorized absence.
The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner’s
absence was not willful and was due to unavoidable
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33491
5 WP-42980-2025
circumstances as is evident from the medical
certificates/documents filed by the petitioner. However, the
authorities failed to consider the same and erroneously held
that the certificates/documents are forged. He also submitted
that the intimation regarding his illness was given by
petitioner to one Jitendra Singh Kaurav, who was also
working as Guard and belong to his home town. It is his
submission that Jitendra Singh Kaurav was not examined by
the enquiry officer, though, he was a material witness.
11. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner was
on probation at the time when the enquiry was conducted and
subsequently vide order dated 9/10/2021 (Annexure P/5), the
petitioner was confirmed in service w.e.f. 3/8/2018, and
therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of increments from the
date of his initial appointment. It is his submission that after
lapse of two years of passing of punishment order, his salary
was not restored. He, thus, submitted that the impugned
orders are liable to be set aside.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
supported the impugned action of the respondents and
submitted that the finding of guilt has been recorded against
the petitioner by properly appreciating the evidence and the
same does not warrant any interference by this Court. It is his
submission that this Court would not sit as an appellate
authority and appreciate the evidence in exercise of powers
of judicial review. The learned counsel also submitted that
the intimation regarding his illness was never given by
petitioner to the Officer and it was only after the chargesheet
was issued, the aforesaid information was furnished. He
submitted that the passing out parade and convocation
ceremony is an important event and the petitioner was
expected to be serious about the same. However, the conduct
of the petitioner shows that he intentionally avoided
participating in the parade and convocation ceremony and
thus, the findings recorded during the course of enquiry
cannot be said to be perverse. He therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
13. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
14. Before entering into the merits of the case, the scope of
interference of this Court in disciplinary matters needs to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33491
6 WP-42980-2025
discussed. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India &
Ors. vs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015)2 SCC 610 has
laid down following parameters to be kept in mind while
dealing with punishment matters:-
“12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully
disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an
appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings,
reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer.
The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary
authority and was also endorsed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the
High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first
appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not
venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court
can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed
in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in
conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a
fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to
the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced
by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever
have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit
the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the
High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the
same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33491
7 WP-42980-2025
findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to
be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it
shocks its conscience.”
15. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, the facts of
the present case need to be looked into. Admittedly, the
petitioner was absent from duties from 9/8/2017 till
6/11/2017. The explanation given by the petitioner for his
absence was his suffering from Jaundice and Typhoid. It was
his case that the petitioner was ill and the complete bed rest
advised by the doctor. The burden to establish his defense
was thus on the petitioner. Since, his absence was for about
three months long, he was required to establish that he was
suffering illness of such a nature which prevented him from
attending the office even for submitting leave application. In
support of his defense, the petitioner submitted the sickness
certificate issued by the Govt. doctor. As per his submission,
he was initially admitted in Govt. Hospital Berad on
9/8/2017 and thereafter admitted in hospital at Gwalior on
28/8/2017.
16. Admittedly no leave application was submitted by
petitioner till charge sheet was issued to him. As per his
submission, the petitioner communicated the factum of his
illness to the office through Jitendra Singh Kaurav, another
Guard working in District Jail, Sheopur, who in turn
informed about the same to Pappu Lal Batham, Chief Jail
Warden of District Jail, Sheopur. Shri Batham was examined
as prosecution witness wherein he specifically denied having
received any intimation about the petitioner's sickness. The
petitioner also did not examine Jitendra Kaurav in his
defence. Thus, there is no material available on record to
show that the petitioner gave intimation of his illness to the
office.
17. The matter of leave is governed by M.P. Civil Services
(Leave) Rules, 1977. Rule 6(1) provides that leave cannot be
claimed as of right. Further, as per Rule 17(1) of Leave
Rules, the petitioner was required to submit leave application
alongwith medical certificate in Form 3 stating about
probable time of his illness. Rule 17(5) provides that mere
grant of medical certificate would not confer on Government
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33491
8 WP-42980-2025
servant a right to avail leave and the discretion is given to
competent authority to sanction or not to sanction leave.
Further, Rule 23(3) of Leave Rules provides that a
Government servant proceeded on medical leave shall not be
allowed to rejoin his duty unless he produce a fitness
certificate in Form 4. By virtue of Rule 24(2) of Leave
Rules, willful absence from duty after expiry of leave renders
a Government servant liable to disciplinary action.
18. A careful scrutiny of aforesaid rule position makes it
clear that the petitioner was required to submit an application
with certificate in prescribed format before the competent
authority i.e. respondent no.3 while he was on leave. Thus,
even if his defense that he has given intimation of his illness
to his co-employees, is accepted, the same does not satisfy
the requirement of rules. Even otherwise, after having
assumed duty on 6/11/2017, the petitioner immediately did
not submit the medical certificates and submitted the same
only with his reply to the charge-sheet. The conduct of
petitioner shows that his defence of being seriously ill was
not genuine and was concocted one. The charge levelled
against the petitioner regarding his act of not attending the
passing out parade and convocation ceremony on 4/10/2017,
was directly linked with his absence with duty.
19. Regarding his not attending passing out parade and
convocation ceremony on 4/10/2017, the petitioner's defence
was that he was never intimated about the aforesaid
parade/ceremony otherwise he could have attended the office
and intimated about his illness. This has been so stated by the
petitioner in his reply to charge sheet as also in reply to show
cause notice. However, in the same reply(s), the petitioner
has made a specific averment that the intimation regarding
attending the passing out parade and convocation ceremony
vide memo dated 9/9/2017 was received by him on
16/9/2017. Thus, the petitioner was aware about the fact that
he is required to attend the passing out parade on 4/10/2017.
In the same reply, he has stated that if he had the knowledge
of his participating in passing out parade, he would have
appeared in District Jail, Sheopur and informed about his
illness. Thus, the aforesaid two stands taken by the petitioner
are self--contradictory. As per his own submission, he was
aware about the fact that he is required to participate in
passing out parade and convocation ceremony on 4/10/2017.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33491
9 WP-42980-2025
20. The enquiry officer as also respondent no.3 have
appreciated the material available on record and have reached
to a conclusion that the petitioner's remaining absent from
duty was unjustified and for the same reason his remaining
absent from parade and convocation ceremony was also
unjustified. This finding is based upon the appreciation of
evidence collected during the course of enquiry and cannot
be said to be based upon “no evidence” or “perverse to the
extent that no prudent person could reach to such a
conclusion”. In view of Apex Court judgment in the case of
P. Gunasekaran (supra), this Court would not re-appreciate
the evidence. Insufficient evidence is also not a ground for
interference. Consequently, the finding of guilt recorded
during course of enquiry does not warrant any interference
from this Court.
21. The petitioner’s counsel vehemently argued that the
petitioner’s unauthorized absence from duty was not the
subject matter of charge sheet and, therefore, the finding
about the same could not have been recorded during enquiry.
In this regard, it be noted that the petitioner’s absence from
passing out parade and convocation ceremony was directly
linked with his unauthorized absence. During the course of
enquiry, he was aware that the factum of his remaining
unauthorized absence from duty is being enquired into while
enquiring into his remaining absent from passing out parade
and convocation ceremony. However, he did not raise any
objection to this effect. Moreso, factum of his illness is being
examined in view of the defence taken by petitioner in the
enquiry.
22. Even otherwise, if the argument of petitioner’s counsel is
accepted, the charge of petitioner’s remaining absent from
passing out parade and convocation ceremony is established
solely based upon his admission in reply to charge sheet and
reply to show cause notice that he received intimation about
the event of 04/10/2017.
23. The objection raised by respondents’ counsel regarding
delay and laches in challenging the punishment order is also
worth consideration. The punishment order was passed by
respondent no.3 on 30/07/2018 while he challenged the same
before respondent no.2 on 21/03/2022 i.e. after lapse of three
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33491
10 WP-42980-2025
and half years. The petitioner has not even offered any
explanation for this inordinate delay in challenging the
punishment order. Interestingly, the currency of penalty
order was already over by the time appeal was filed by
petitioner. The respondent no.2 was, therefore, justified in
rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay.
24. The petitioner has also claimed relief for grant of benefit
from the initial date of his appointment pursuant to his
confirmation in service. He has also claimed relief of
restoration of his salary after expiry of two years of
punishment period. In this regard, it is seen that the petitioner
is confirmed in service vide order dated 9/10/2021 (Annexure
P/5). His confirmation is w.e.f. 03/08/2018. As per Clause 2
of the order, the petitioner is entitled to count his services
w.e.f. his initial date of appointment for purposes of
increments also. Thus, the claim made by the petitioner for
grant of increments w.e.f. 3/8/2016 is justified. Further, the
punishment imposed upon the petitioner bringing him down
to his basic pay was for two years. Meaning thereby, after
expiry of two years, he is required to be brought back to his
actual position after giving notional benefit.
25. In view of the discussion made above, this petition is
disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) the impugned orders of punishment passed by
respondents no.1 to 3 are upheld and the petition is
dismissed so far as the challenge to said orders is
concerned;
(ii) respondents are directed to give benefit of
increments to petitioner w.e.f. 3/8/2016 as per Clause 2
of order dated 9/10/2021; and
(iii) the monetary benefit of increments shall not be
given for the period of currency of punishment order
and after expiry of the same, the petitioner shall be
entitled to notional benefit of increments for the said
period."
6. Considering the aforesaid, as the controversy involved in the present
case has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33491
11 WP-42980-2025
present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant the
benefit of increments to the petitioner, as per his entitlement, after expiry of
the currency of the punishment order dated 30.07.2018. However, since the
petition challenging the punishment order has already been dismissed, the
said punishment order shall remain intact.
7. The respondents are directed to comply with the aforesaid directions
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order.
8. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
vpn/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
11:13:07 AM