Shivram Singh Tomar vs State Of M.P.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

1 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
THE IN HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 7 OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 7593 of 2010
SHIVRAM SINGH TOMAR
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Shiraz Qureshi – Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri Rajendra Kumar Shrivastav – Advocate for respondent No.3 and 4.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking following relief (s):-
“i. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this
Writ Petition;
ii. Writ of mandamus may kindly be issued setting aside the
impugned order dated 28.7.2008 and the copy of the approval
dated 23.5./25.3.2010 of the termination dated 02.12.2008,
Annexure P/1 and P/2, P/23 by which the services of the
petitioner has been terminated and a writ of mandamus may
kindly be issued commanding the respondents jointly and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

2 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
severally to restore the services of the petitioner with all
benefits which accrued during the period of
termination/suspension order for which the petitioner is entitled.
A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued against the
respondents commanding them to pay all the benefits during the
period of suspension along with subsistence allowance and
thereafter difference of pay may kindly be paid to the petitioner.
iii. Any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble
Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner.
Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner. ”
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Maharaja Mansingh
College Shiksha Samiti is a society registered under the Societies
Registration Adhiniyam and running the educational institution in the name
and style as “Maharaja Mansingh College”. The college is receiving 100%
grant-in-aid from the State Government. It is further submitted that
petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 1.9.1997.
Thereafter, his services were confirmed on the said post vide order dated
31.7.1999. He passed Accounts Training Course in February, 1987.
Thereafter, he was sanctioned increment on account of passing Accounts
Training Course. Mr. B.P. Chaudhary who was working as Head Clerk-Cum
-Accountant stood retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.1996 and the post fell
vacant. Then charge of Head Clerk- Cum-Accountant was assigned to
petitioner. Mr. V.D. Gupta was appointed on absorption in the college on the
post on which petitioner was working as Head Clerk-Cum-Accountant.
Petitioner challenged the said order before the High Court in W.P.
No.202/97. The High Court granted stay against the absorption of Mr. V.D.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

3 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
Gupta as Head Clerk-Cum-Accountant and thereafter the order was
withdrawn.
3. The petition of the petitioner was disposed of by the High Court with
the observation that the authority may consider the case of petitioner with
regard to promotion. Petitioner submitted representation to this effect on
23.09.1998.
4. Thereafter, the promotion committee was constituted to consider the
case of petitioner. However, petitioner was not promoted and on 31.03.1998
Mr. P.B.S. Yadav was appointed as In-charge Principal on account of
retirement of Dr. D.N. Chaturvedi. The charge of Head Clerk-Cum-
Accountant was withdrawn from petitioner in January, 1999.
5. Petitioner filed a contempt petition before the High Court which was
registered as M.C.C. No. 111/1999.
6. Thereafter, the In-charge Principal vide order dated 30.10.1999 passed
order of suspension against petitioner. Thereafter, on 10.12.1999, charge-
sheet was issued to petitioner. By the said charge-sheet four charges were
levelled against petitioner. The first charge was that when he was Accountant
from 01.01.1997, he passed some secret documents of the institution to
political persons. The second charge was that petitioner retained caution
money of Rs.75/- of the student which was never deposited by him. The
third charge was that petitioner disobeyed the order of the Principal and the
fourth charge was that petitioner misbehaved with the employees of the
college.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

4 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
7. The petitioner denied the aforesaid charges. Thereafter, detailed
imputation of charges was issued to petitioner. He further denied the
aforesaid charges and submitted a detailed reply. Petitioner also alleged that
the Incharge Principal had no power and authority to issue a charge-sheet
and the enquiry was initiated with mala fide intention.
8. Thereafter, vide order dated 12.01.2000, a retired Principal of the
college Mr. Sarman Singh Yadav was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The
petitioner objected appointment of enquiry officer vide letter dated
22.01.2000 on the ground that it was against the Rules.
9. Thereafter, as per petitioner he submitted a letter for joining and also
submitted representations to participate in the enquiry. However, he was not
permitted to participate in the enquiry and enquiry was conducted ex parte .
10. Respondents No. 1 & 2 had not filed the return though they have been
served. Respondents No. 3 & 4 filed the return and stated that the Incharge
Principal was authorized to issue the charge-sheet. Petitioner deliberately did
not appear before the enquiry officer. Hence, ex parte enquiry was conducted
and thereafter, the charges were found proved against petitioner. The
Management Committee of the Institution took a decision to terminate the
services of petitioner.
11. Earlier, all the papers along with enquiry report were sent to the
appropriate authority with regard to approval for termination of service of
petitioner. However, the approval was not granted by the appropriate
authority. Hence, the Education Committee in its meeting dated 24.08.2002
decided to dismiss petitioner from service and consequently, the order of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

5 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
dismissal was passed by the Principal dated 03.09.2002. Thereafter,
petitioner preferred W.P. No. 2230/2005 which was allowed on 24.08.2007
and the dismissal order dated 03.09.2002 and resolution dated 24.08.2002
were quashed. The Court directed the respondents to pay full salary and
other benefits to petitioner and cost of Rs. 2,000/- was also awarded in
favour of petitioner. Against the said order, the respondents preferred W.A.
No.639/2007 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide
order dated 04.11.2008. However, liberty was granted to the respondents to
continue the enquiry on the basis of the charge-sheet already issued to
petitioner by appointing a fresh Enquiry Officer. It is further submitted that
thereafter on 21.11.2008 (Annexure R/15) resolution was passed by the
Management of the College; whereby, it was decided to impose major
penalty of termination of services of petitioner. It is further submitted that
prior to the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, the management had already
decided to impose the major penalty of termination of the services of
petitioner. It is submitted that thereafter vide order dated 02.12.2008, in
pursuance of the resolution dated 21.11.2008, petitioner was terminated from
service (Annexure R/17). Thereafter, merely to complete the formalities, the
respondents appointed Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, Principal, as the Enquiry
Officer vide order dated 15.01.2009 (Annexure P/12). It is further submitted
that the Enquiry Officer did not issue any show-cause notice to petitioner
and thereafter, on 31.03.2009, the respondents requested the Commissioner
to accord approval of the termination order of the petitioner (Annexure
R/17). By order dated 25.03.2010, approval for the termination/dismissal of
petitioner was purportedly granted by the Commissioner (Annexure P/2).
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

6 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer communicated to the Chairman, Governing
Council that the inquiry proceedings instituted against petitioner had been
completed and requested expeditious action against petitioner on the basis of
the inquiry report. It is further submitted that a copy of the inquiry report
was not supplied to petitioner and no show-cause notice was issued to him.
12. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per Madhya Pradesh
Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon Ke
Nilamban) Niyam, 1978 the procedure has been provided. Rule 5 of the said
Rules says that on receipt of the application under Rule 4, the competent
authority shall call for the relevant record of the case to satisfy itself as to the
propriety or legality of the proposed order. After satisfying itself, a notice be
sent accompanying the reasons in writing for suspension. It is further
submitted that as per Rule 9 of the said Rules, the competent authority shall
complete the inquiry and pass order within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of application for approval and submitted that aforesaid Rule
9 has not been complied with by the respondent. It is further submitted that
as per Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha
(Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon Ke Padachyut Karne/Seva Se
Hatane Sambandhi Prakriya) Niyam, 1983 says that no order imposing any
of the penalties specified in sub-clause-(iii) of Clause (a) of Section 6 of
Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya
Karchariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam 1978, on a teacher or other
employee shall be made unless he has been informed in writing of the
grounds on which it is it proposed to take action and he has been given
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

7 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
reasonable opportunity of defending himself. Section 7 of the Rules of 1983
deals with “Enquiry Officer”. Clause (c) of Sub- section (1) of Section 7 of
the Rules of 1983 says that after the written statement is received from the
teacher or other employee in accordance with Rule 5 or if no statement
received within the time specified as reference shall be made in the case of
an employee, the Head of the institution shall be appointed as an Enquiry
Officer. Section 9 of the said Rules of 1983 pertains to the report of the
Enquiry Officer. Section 12 of the said Rules of 1983 pertains to the decision
of the Management. Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the said
Rules of 1983 provides that the Management shall, after considering the
representation, if any, made by the teacher or other employee, determine
what action, if any, should be taken against the teacher or other employee
and make a proposal for the order which it intends to pass. In the present
case, no approval was taken in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of
the said Rules of 1983. It is further submitted that after appointment of
Rajendra Singh Yadav, Principal as an Enquiry Officer, no notice was given
to the petitioner in regard of the inquiry. It is further submitted that without
complying the principal of natural justice all the proceedings remained only
on the paper. No show-cause notice was issued; no opportunity of being
heard was given to petitioner. Moreover, petitioner was not called for
participating in the proceeding as initiated. It is submitted that even the
inquiry report dated 20.4.2009 was not supplied to petitioner. It is further
submitted that Enquiry Officer has not examined the witnesses in front of
petitioner. As per the inquiry report, the Enquiry Officer has not recorded
any new facts and has only stated that ;kfpdk dzekad 639@2007 esa fn;s
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

8 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
x;s funZs'ku esa dh xbZ iqu% tkWap esa vkjksih Jh f'kojke flag rksej us ,slh
dksbZ ubZ ckr ugha dgh tks vkjksi dks vfl) djrk gksA . It is further
submitted that after granting liberty by the Division Bench, the Enquiry
Officer did not issue any show-cause notice to petitioner and this fact has not
even been mentioned by the Enquiry Officer in the inquiry report dated
20.04.2009/31.03.2009.
13. Per contra , learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 as well as
learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that after the liberty was
granted by the Division Bench, due procedure was followed by the
respondents and the termination of the petitioner’s services was carried out
in accordance with law. It is further submitted that despite issuance of notice,
petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel for
respondents supported the impugned order, opposed the prayer made by
learned counsel for petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the present
petition.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
15. Perusal of record reveals that petitioner was appointed as a Lower
Division Clerk in 1997 and later confirmed in service. After being given
additional responsibilities as Head Clerk-cum-Accountant, dispute arose
regarding his promotion and appointment of another person to the post.
Petitioner challenged these actions before the High Court which directed the
authorities to consider his case for promotion. Subsequently, petitioner was
suspended in 1999 and charge-sheeted on allegations including misconduct,
misappropriation and disobedience. He denied all charges and raised
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

9 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
objections regarding the authority of the Incharge Principal and the inquiry
process. An ex parte inquiry was conducted and petitioner was dismissed
from service in 2002. The dismissal was later quashed by the High Court in
2007 with a direction for reinstatement and payment of benefits. The
Division Bench upheld the order but allowed the respondents to conduct a
fresh inquiry. However, despite having such liberty extended, the
management allegedly pre-decided to terminate the petitioner and passed a
resolution to that effect even before appointing a new Enquiry Officer. A
fresh Enquiry Officer was appointed in 2009 but no proper notice or
opportunity of hearing was given to petitioner. The inquiry report was also
not supplied to him. Eventually, approval for termination was obtained from
the Commissioner and the process was completed without following due
procedure. True it is that respondents failed to follow the mandatory
procedure prescribed under the relevant Rules of 1978 and 1983. Prior to
approval, proper inquiry and compliance timelines were not adhered to. The
petitioner was neither issued any show-cause notice nor given an opportunity
of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Even after the
appointment of the Enquiry Officer, no notice was served upon the
petitioner, no witnesses were examined in his presence and the inquiry report
was not supplied to him. The Enquiry Officer also did not record any new
fact and merely reiterated earlier findings. Despite liberty granted by the
Division Bench to conduct a fresh inquiry, the respondents failed to follow
due procedure, rendering the entire inquiry and subsequent action vitiated.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

10 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
16. While dismissing the appeal filed by the respondents, the Division
Bench, vide order dated 04.11.2008 passed in W.A. No. 639/2007, granted
liberty to the respondents in the following manner:
13. Hence, the learned Writ Court has not committed any in
allowed the writ petition thereby quashing the termination
order. However, we observe that now the enquiry can be
continued against the respondent No.1 herein on the basis of
charge sheet already issued against him by appointing fresh
enquiry officer, who shall be Head of the Institution , and
will be eligible for appointment of Enquiry Officer as per Rule
7(e) of the Rules, 1983. If such inquiry officer is appointed, he
shall proceed with the enquiry and conclude the same in
accordance with law within a period of six months from the
date of appointment looking to the facts that the matter is quite
old and the respondent No.1 herein is facing enquiry for long
period.
14. Accordingly, the writ appeal is hereby dismissed with the
aforesaid liberty/ observation. No costs.
17. Thereafter, in compliance with the same, by order dated 15.01.2009
(Annexure P/12), Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav was appointed as the
Enquiry Officer. A specific query was put by this Court on four
occasions to the learned counsel for the respondents as to whether any
notice had been issued by the Enquiry Officer, Shri Rajendra Singh
Yadav, after 15.01.2009; however, learned counsel for the respondents
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

11 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
maintained blissful silence and did not provide any answer to the said
query. The fact that no notice was issued to petitioner in relation to the
inquiry has already been pleaded by him in Ground (c) in the following
manner:
“nor an notice was given to the petitioner in regard of the
enquiry.”
18. Despite the aforesaid pleading, the respondents did not deny the
aforesaid fact and only gave reply in following manner:
“(c) That, the Incharge Pricinpal R.S. Yadav was appointed as
inquiry officer who conducted entire inquiry as per procedure
prescribed in the rules. The appointment of the inquiry officer is
under the Rules 1983.”
19. The Division Bench has already granted liberty stating that the inquiry
may be continued against petitioner on the basis of the charge-sheet already
issued to him by appointing a fresh Enquiry Officer. Despite the aforesaid
liberty, the proper procedure has not been followed by the respondents and
the Enquiry Officer has also not recorded the same in the inquiry report.
Further, although it is alleged that notice was issued to petitioner, the
Enquiry Officer has merely stated in the inquiry report that proceedings were
conducted on five occasions. However, the Enquiry Officer has not stated
that any show-cause notice was issued to petitioner nor has he recorded that
the petitioner remained absent during the said five proceedings conducted by
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav (Enquiry Officer).
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

12 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
20. In the previous round of litigation, this Court has observed in
following manner in W.P. No.2230/2005:
27. It is clear from the aforesaid proceedings that no show cause
notice was issued by the Management before deciding to
dismiss the petitioner from service. Although the respondents
No. 3 & 4 filed a copy of the show cause notice along with
return in W.P. No. 2230/2005 as Annexure R/3-4/1 dated
24.06.2000. However, that notice cannot be said to be in
compliance of the statutory provisions. It was issued by the
Principal after decision by the Management. Apart from this, it
is not clear that whether a copy of the enquiry report along with
all the papers were sent to the petitioner? The respondents
Management did not file any copy of report of the enquiry
officer in which it is being said that the charges against the
petitioner were found proved. Neither it has been stated in the
return that how many witnesses were examined? and on what
basis the Management found the charges proved against the
petitioner. There is no discussion about the misconduct of the
petitioner in the resolution also. Simply it has been stated that
on the basis of enquiry report it was decided to dismiss the
petitioner from service.
28. From the above discussion, it is clear that the
appointment of enquiry officer was against the Statutory rules
of 1983. Hence, the proceedings with regard to dismissal of the
petitioner are also against the mandatory provisions of rules 11
& 12 of rules of 1983. The petitioner was dismissed from
service vide order dated 03.09.2002 without approval by the
competent authority. It has been stated by the respondents that
the case of approval was pending before the authority.
29. Looking to the rules of 1983 an approval of competent
authority as condition precedent before issuing the dismissal
order of the petitioner was necessary.
30. The Division Bench of this Court in Dilip Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

13 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
Prabandhak Samiti Maheshwari H.S.S. and Others reported
in 1993 JLJ 529 has held as under:
"18. It is abundantly clear that the respondents
have not followed the procedure as prescribed by
Rule 12 (3) of the Rules. The impugned order of
termination Annex. 'B' passed by the respondent
No. 1 on 23.07.1986 is liable to be quashed on this
short ground alone, it is accordingly quashed. We
deliberately refrain from expressing any view on
the justifiability of the impugned order in view of
the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is
solely on the basis of the glaring procedural lapse
on the part of the respondents in not complying
with Rule 12 (3) of the Rules that the termination
order is struck down as void and inoperative."
31. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
respondents based on the Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in Suga Ram @ Chhuga Ram Versus State of
Rajasthan & Others reported in 2006 AIR SC 3258 cannot
be accepted that the subsequent approval will cure the defect.
But in the present case no approval has been granted by the
competent authority even after 5 years of order of dismissal of
the petitioner from service and the mandatory provision of
statutory rules of 1983 have not been followed.
32. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the whole enquiry is
vitiated and liable to be quashed. With regard to availability of
alternate remedy, it is clear that the petitioner was dismissed
from service in the year 2002 since then appeal has not been
decided. He filed a petition in the year 2005, existence of
alternate remedy is no bar in exercising power for writ of
certiorari as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool
Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai
reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 22 has held as under
with regard to maintainability of petition if alternative remedy
is available:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

14 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
"The jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining
a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution, inspite of the alternative statutory
remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where
the authority against whom the writ is filed is
shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported
to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation.
That being so, the High Court was not justified in
dismissing the Writ Petition at the initial stage
without examining the contention that the show
cause notice issued to the appellant was wholly
without jurisdiction".
33. Looking to the facts of the case, in my opinion, dismissing
the petition of the petitioner on the ground of alternate remedy
when there is naked violation of statutory rules will be unjust.
21. Despite the aforesaid consideration, the respondents have again failed
to properly follow the prescribed procedure, and the Enquiry Officer
submitted the inquiry report along with the covering letter dated 20.04.2009
in the following manner:
v/;{k 'kklh fudk; egkjktk ekuflag egkfo|ky; Xokfy;j ds
vkns'k dzekad 2008&9@D ;w1 fnukad 15-01-2009 ds ifjikyu esa
vkjksih Jh f'kojke flag rksej fuyfEcr fuEu Js.kh fyfid egkjktk
ekuflag egkfo|ky; ds fo:) ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB
Xokfy;j ;kfpdk dzekad 639@2007 esa fn;s x;s funZs'kks ds vuqlkj
laLFkkfir foHkkxh; tkWap dh xbZ tks fnukad 31-01-2009 ls izkjEHk
gksdj fnukad 31-03-2009 rd lEiUu gqbZA tkWap dk;Zokgh esa dqy 5
cSBds gqbZA
vkjksi dzekad%1&vkjksih Jh f'kojke flag rksej fuEu Js.kh fyfid ds
izHkkj esa egRoiw.kZ pktZ Fkk] ftlesa rhu i= dzekad
1312@1319 o i=kpkj 109&90@97@6153 fnukad
10-10-97 ,oa i= dzekad 655 fnukad 4-01-98 thokth
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

15 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
fo'ofo|ky; dk i= dzekad , Q@fodk 'k@98@154
fnukad 6-03- 98 vkids izHkkj esa FksA Jh iz/equ flag
rksej us vius iSM ij f'kdk;r dj egkfo|ky; dh
Nfo /kwfey djus dk iz;kl fd;k] Jh f'kojke flag
rksej fuEu Js.kh fyfid }kjk vukf/kd`r O;fDr dks
i= igqpkuk vkjksiks dks fl) djrk gSA
;kfpdk dzekad 639@2007 esa fn;s x;s funsZ'ku
esa dh xbZ iqu% tkWap esa vkjksih Jh f'kojke flag
rksej us ,slh dksbZ ckr ugha dgh tks vkjksi dks
vfl) djrk gksA
vkjksi dzekad%2&vkjksih Jh f'kojke flag rksej us ,d ,sl Nk=
dks /kjksgj jkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k gS] tc fd ml
Nk= dh /kjksgj jkf'k egkfo|ky; esa tek ugh Fkh]
egkfo|ky; fjdkMZuqlkj ds vuqlkj vkjksi Lor% gh
fl) gSA
;kfpdk dzekad 639@2007 esa fn;s x;s funZs'ku
esa dh xbZ iqu% tkWap esa vkjksih Jh f'kojke flag
rksej us ,slh dksbZ ubZ ckr ugha dgh tks
vkjksi dks vfl) djrk gksA
vkjksi dzekad%3&dkWyst fjdkMkZuqlkj egkfo|ky; dh vkns'k iqfLrdk
ij gh uksV yxkuk] vkns'kks dh vogsyuk djus ds
vkfn gS] izkpk;Z ds vkns'kks dk ikyu u dj vuq'kklu
ghurk dh gSA vkjksi iw.kZr;k fl) gSA
;kfpdk dzekad 639@2007 esa fn;s x;s funZs'ku
esa dh xbZ iqu% tkWap esa vkjksih Jh
f'kojke flag rksej us,slh dksbZ ubZ ckr ugha
dgh tks vkjksi dks vfl) djrk gksA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

16 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
vkjksi dzekad4&egkfo|ky; ds 'kS{kf.kd ,oa v'kSf{k.k deZpkfj;ksa ds
lkFk vHknz O;ogkj fd;k x;k gS] muds }kjk iwoZ esa
fn;s x;s dFkuks dh iqf"V dh gS] tks fd iwoZ esa dFku
fy;s x;s gSA Jh f'kojke flag rksej fuEu Js.kh
fyfid ij vkjksi dzekad 4 iw.kZr;k fl) gksrk gS
;kfpdk dzekad 639@2007 esa fn;s x;s funZs'ku
esa dh xbZ iqu% tkWap esa vkjksih Jh f'kojke flag
rksej us ,slh dksbZ ubZ ckr ugha dgh tks vkjksi
dks vfl) djrk gksA
22. The Enquiry Officer has not recorded any relevant finding and the
liberty granted by the Division Bench has not been properly complied with
by the respondents. Moreover, even prior to receipt of the inquiry report, the
Management, by resolution dated 21.11.2008 (Annexure R/15), had already
decided to impose the major penalty of termination of the services of
petitioner. Pursuant to the said resolution, petitioner was terminated from
service by order dated 02.12.2008 (Annexure R/7). Thereafter, the Enquiry
Officer submitted the inquiry report. Thus, it is evident that the services of
petitioner were terminated even before the inquiry report was received. This
is the third round of litigation and despite the specific liberty granted by the
Division Bench, the respondents have repeated the same error which had
already been considered and affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court
vide judgment dated 04.11.2008.
23.
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

17 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
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.
24. 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
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.
25. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

18 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
India (1994) 6 SCC 651, Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International
Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617, B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v.
Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 548 and Jagdish
Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517” 31.
26. Also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti
Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v/s Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited
in (2010) 9 SCC 496 highlights this point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraph 15 opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi judicial
authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties,
must speak. It must not be like the inscrutable face of a sphinx. In paragraph
47 the Honb'le Supreme Court summarized its discussion. The relevant
subparagraphs of the said summary are quoted as under:-
“ 47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a
decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by
judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of
law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions
based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial
decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of
justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as
different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these
decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by
reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This
is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery
system.
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad
doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now
virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

19 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
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”.
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Oryx Fisheries Pvt.Ltd vs
Union Of India & Ors; (2010) 13 SCC 427 has held as under:-
"41. In M/s Kranti Associates (supra), this Court after
considering various judgments formulated certain principles in
para 51 of the judgment which are set out below
a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons,
even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone
prejudicially.
b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of
its conclusions.
c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider
principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must
also appear to be done as well.
d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any
possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even
administrative power.
e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the
decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding
extraneous considerations.
f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component
of a decision making process as observing principles of natural
justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative
bodies.
g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior
Courts.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

20 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule
of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned
decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood
of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason
is the soul of justice.
i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as
different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All
these decisions serve one common purpose which is to
demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been
objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the
litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial
accountability and transparency.
k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough
about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to
know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of
precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and
succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not
to be equated with a valid decision making process.
m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of
restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision
making not only makes the judges and decision makers less
prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny.
(See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100
Harward Law Review 731-737).
n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the
broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said
requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and
was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19
EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford,
2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

21 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
European Convention of Human Rights which requires,
"adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial
decisions". o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a
vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for
development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the
decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due
Process".
42. In the instant case the appellate order contains reasons.
However, absence of reasons in the original order cannot be
compensated by disclosure of reason in the appellate order.
43. In I nstitute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K.
Ratna and others,(1986) 4 SCC 537 , it has been held:

28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab
National Bank and Ors. Vide judgment dated 19.12.2008 passed in SLP ©
No.14429 of 2007 has held as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

22 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
“17. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also
the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the
orders passed by them have severe civil consequences,
appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry
officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant,
there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by
the Criminal Court on the basis of self-same evidence should
not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought
on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A
decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally
admissible. The provisions of the Evidence At may not be
applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of
natural justice are. As the report of the Enquiry Officer was
based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the
same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by
the Enquiry Officer apparently were not supported by any
evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be,
can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal
proof.”
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar v. Presiding
Officer, (1985) 3 SCC 378 has held as under:-
5. We have extracted the charges framed against the appellant.
We have also pointed out in clear terms the report of the enquiry
officer. It is well-settled that a disciplinary enquiry has to be a
quasi-judicial enquiry held according to the principles of natural
justice and the enquiry officer has a duty to act judicially. The
enquiry officer did not apply his mind to the evidence. Save
setting out the names of the witnesses, he did not discuss the
evidence. He merely recorded his ipse dixit that the charges are
proved. He did not assign a single reason why the evidence
produced by the appellant did not appeal to him or was
considered not creditworthy. He did not permit a peep into his
mind as to why the evidence produced by the management
appealed to him in preference to the evidence produced by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

23 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
appellant. An enquiry report in a quasi-judicial enquiry must
show the reasons for the conclusion. It cannot be an ipse dixit of
the enquiry officer. It has to be a speaking order in the sense that
the conclusion is supported by reasons. This is too well settled
to be supported by a precedent. In Madhya Pradesh Industries
Ltd. v. Union of India [AIR 1966 SC 671 : (1966) 1 SCR 466 :
(1966) 1 SCJ 204] this Court observed that a speaking order
will at best be a reasonable and at its worst be at least a
plausible one. The public should not be deprived of this only
safeguard. Similarly in Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. Slate
of U.P. [AIR 1966 SC 671 : (1971) 1 SCR 201] this Court
reiterated that satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be
reached only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that
appealed to the authority. It should all the more be so where the
quasi-judicial enquiry may result in deprivation of livelihood or
attach a stigma to the character. In this case the enquiry report is
an order sheet which merely produces the stage through which
the enquiry passed. It clearly disclosed a total non-application of
mind and it is this report on which the General Manager acted in
terminating the service of the appellant. There could not have
been a more gross case of non-application of mind and it is such
an enquiry which has found favour with the Labour Court and
the High Court.
6. Where a disciplinary enquiry affects the livelihood and is
likely to cast a stigma and it has to be held in accordance with
the principles of natural justice, the minimum expectation is that
the report must be a reasoned one.....
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.V. Bijlani v. Union of
India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 has held as under:-
25.It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is
limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-
criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the
charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are
not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

24 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the
enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon
analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there
had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on
the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take
into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to
consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof.
He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on
the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the
allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been
charged with.
31. Considering the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and disposed of in
following terms:
(i) Impugned order dated 28.7.2008 (Annexure P/1),
order dated 25.3.2010 (Annexure P/2) and order
2.12.2008 (Annexure R/17) are hereby quashed;
(ii) The respondents are directed to give all consequential
benefits including the monetary benefits to petitioner;
(iii) Petitioner is entitled for full salary and other benefits
w.e.f. 24.8.2002 which shall be paid by the respondents to
him;
(iv) The respondents shall pay the cost of petition/
compensation Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) to
petitioner;
(v) The respondents shall pay the salary/ back wages from
24.8.2002 till attaining the age of superannuation; and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11294

25 WP. No. 7593 of 2010
(vi) The respondents are directed to pay pension along
with arrears of pension and to continue paying regular
pension to petitioner in accordance with law, if he is
found entitled.
32. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of .

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/22/2026
10:18:19 AM