Disciplinary authorities must consider the delinquent employee’s defence before imposing punishment.

The review petitioners sought recall of the final order dated 03 July 2026 passed in W.P. No. 5938 of 2023, restoration of the writ petition, and rehearing on merits.

In the writ proceedings, the Court had quashed the punishment order dated 31 August 2017 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the consequential appellate order on the ground that the disciplinary order was non-speaking and unreasoned.

After the enquiry report was supplied, the employee had been issued a show-cause notice dated 31 July 2017 and had submitted a detailed eight-page reply, marked Annexure P/8.

The review petitioners contended that, since the Inquiry Officer had found the charges proved, the Disciplinary Authority was not required to pass a separate detailed or speaking order, relying on Airport Authority of India v. Pradeep Kumar Banerjee .

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority could impose punishment merely by accepting the Inquiry Officer’s findings without considering the delinquent employee’s detailed representation against the enquiry report?

2. Whether the order dated 03 July 2026 disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review, recall, and restoration of the writ petition under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC?

The Court applied Rules 14(23), 15 and 16 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, holding that the Inquiry Officer must consider the defence and record reasoned findings, while the Disciplinary Authority must apply its mind to the enquiry record and the employee’s representation before imposing punishment; Rule 15(3) requires reasons to be recorded where a penalty is imposed.

Relying on Airport Authority of India v. Pradeep Kumar Banerjee , the Court accepted that the authority need not answer every contention separately where the employee’s representation has been duly considered, but distinguished that case where the defence is ignored altogether.

The Court further relied on Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava and Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan for the principle that reasons must demonstrate consideration of the relevant defence and application of mind.

Review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is confined to discovery of new and important material, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason; it cannot operate as an appeal or rehearing on merits, as explained in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati , State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta , Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India , and Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi .

The Court held that the issue was not whether the Disciplinary Authority had to respond to every sentence of the eight-page reply, but whether it had considered the material and substantial grounds raised by the employee at all.

The employee had submitted a detailed explanation pursuant to the show-cause notice, and the statutory scheme required that representation to be considered before the final punishment decision.

Acceptance of the Inquiry Officer’s findings did not dispense with this obligation. A failure to consider the defence constituted non-application of mind in the decision-making process, notwithstanding that a lengthy punishment order was not required.

Accordingly, the earlier writ order correctly required consideration of the employee’s defence and did not contain any patent or self-evident error. The grounds raised in review effectively sought reconsideration of the merits and therefore fell outside the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

The decision in Airport Authority of India did not assist the review petitioners because it presupposed that the employee’s representation had been considered.

No error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new material, or other sufficient ground for review was established.

The review petition was therefore found devoid of merit and was dismissed, with no recall or restoration of W.P. No. 5938 of 2023.