Joint disciplinary proceedings without Rule 18 authorization are vitiated when employees hold different ranks.

The petitioner challenged the punishment order dated 2 May 2015, by which two annual increments were withheld with cumulative effect, along with consequential recovery and service-related effects.

He sought quashing of the punishment order, restoration of increments, refund of recovered amounts, treatment of the suspension period as duty, and revision of pensionary and other monetary benefits.

The petitioner contended that the controversy was identical to that decided in Dinesh Chandra Mudiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, W.P. No. 45799 of 2025, decided on 6 August 2026, and that the same punishment order had imposed identical punishment on similarly situated employees.

The State opposed the petition but was unable to distinguish the facts or the applicable precedents.

In Dinesh Chandra Mudiya, the Court had found that the petitioner and other employees were proceeded against through a common charge-sheet and joint departmental enquiry without an order under Rule 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

Whether the petitioner’s punishment order, passed pursuant to a common charge-sheet and joint departmental enquiry involving employees of different ranks without an order under Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 1966, was legally sustainable.

Whether the petition could be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, considering that withholding increments with cumulative effect produces continuing financial and pensionary consequences.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to consequential service, monetary and retiral benefits after quashing of the punishment order.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Rule 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 requires the competent authority to pass an order authorising common disciplinary proceedings where two or more Government servants are proceeded against jointly; in the absence of such an order, a joint enquiry involving employees of different ranks is vitiated.

The Court relied on C.M. Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Arun Kumar Dixit, holding that non-compliance with Rule 18 invalidates the departmental proceedings and consequential punishment.

It also applied Pankaj Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.A. No. 117 of 2015, which recognises that punishment involving stoppage of increments with cumulative effect has continuing consequences, including reduced pension, and therefore delay alone does not justify dismissal where the adverse effect continues.

The Court found that the petitioner’s case was materially identical to Dinesh Chandra Mudiya, as the petitioner had been subjected to the same punishment pursuant to the same disciplinary proceedings and the State could not distinguish the earlier decisions.

Since the underlying enquiry was a common enquiry involving employees holding different posts or ranks, Rule 18 required prior authorisation by the competent authority.

No such order had been obtained; consequently, the enquiry and the punishment founded upon it suffered from a patent legal defect.

The Court further held that the objection of delay and laches was unsustainable because the cumulative withholding of increments continued to affect the petitioner’s salary and pensionary benefits, thereby giving rise to a recurring cause of action.

The Court therefore directed that the judgment in Dinesh Chandra Mudiya apply mutatis mutandis to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the punishment order dated 2 May 2015, insofar as it related to the petitioner, and the appellate order affirming it were quashed and set aside.

The respondents were directed to extend all consequential service and monetary benefits, issue a revised PPO/GPO, and revise the petitioner’s pension and other retiral benefits within four months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

If the exercise was not completed within that period, interest at 6% per annum on delayed monetary benefits would be payable from the date of filing of the petition until actual payment.