Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramnaresh Singh Bhadouria vs Union Of India on 14 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17813
1 WP-20354-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 14th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 20354 of 2020
RAMNARESH SINGH BHADOURIA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Raj Bahadur Singh Tomar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi - Advocate for respondent No.4.
ORDER
This petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the respondent no.2 and 3 kindly directed to decide the
appeal/revision filed by the petitioner against the order of penalty.
(ii) That, the order of penalty annexure P/3 as well as the order
passed in the appeal annexure P/5 also may kindly be quashed.
(iii) That, the respondents kindly further directed to relief the
increment of the petitioner and also pay arrear including the
interest of 12% per annum.
(iv) That, other relief doing justice including cost be ordered."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the month of
October, 2014 when the petitioner was posted as a Constable RPC outpost
Sabalgarh under the post incharge Sitholi, a charge-sheet was served to him
by the respondent No.5 leveling the allegation that petitioner is disobeying
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17813
2 WP-20354-2020
the order of higher authority and also made other allegations.
3. After receiving the charge-sheet, the petitioner has submitted the
reply to the charge-sheet and denying the allegation leveled against him.
Thereafter, respondent No.5/disciplinary authority without conducting any
departmental enquiry issued by order dated 01.01.2016 (Annexure P/3) by
which penalty of one increment withheld for one year (with cumulative
effect).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the major
penalty imposed by the authority without conducting departmental enquiry.
Thereafter, petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority.
Thereafter, the appeal has also been decided by order dated 04.05.2016
(Annexure P/5). It is also submitted that as per Rule 158.1 of Railway
Protection Force Rules, 1987 before imposing the major penalty, an enquiry
shall be held and in present case, no enquiry has been held by the
respondents. He relied upon the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this
Court at Principal Seat in the case of Pankaj Yadav Vs. State of M.P. &
Others, order dated 14.07.2015 passed in W.A.No.117/2015.
5 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 supported the
impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the petition on the ground of
limitation also. It is also submitted that on 28.05.2016, the petitioner has
challenged the appeal rejection order and on the basis of delay and latches,
the present petition has been filed in the year of 2020.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Rule 158.2 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 read as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17813
3 WP-20354-2020
"Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) of sub-rule (1),
if it is proposed, after considering the representation, if any, made
by the party charged under the said clause (a) to withhold
increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to
affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the party
charged or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding
three years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative
effect for any period or to reduce him by more than three stages in
his scale of pay, an inquiry shall be held , as far as possible, in the
manner laid down in rule 153 before making any order imposing
on the party charged any such punishment."
8. In para 4 of Pankaj Yadav (supra) , it is held as under:
"4. We have considered the contention advanced by the appellant
and find that merely because appellant has not filed the writ
petition within time, that by itself would not be a ground for
dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay. The
punishment imposed for stoppage of one increment with
cumulative effect had adverse consequent effect even after the
retirement of appellant. Every month less amount is received
because of the punishment and even after retirement appellant will
receive less pension. Once there is continuous effect of the
impugned punishment order and when it has adverse effect even
after retirement, it has a continuous consequence every month,
therefore, we are of the considered view that the prayer of
appellant should have been considered by the writ Court and in the
facts and circumstances of the case and on the ground as
indicated dismissal of petition was not called for."
9. Since the major punishment of withholding increment with cumulative
effect has been awarded which affects the future prospects, pension, salary
and other retiral dues of the petitioner, therefore, it has the recurring cause of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17813
4 WP-20354-2020
action and thus, the present petition is allowed and order dated 01.01.2016
(Annexure P/3) and order dated 04.05.2016 (Annexure P/5) are hereby
quashed. However, the liberty has been granted to the respondents to take
necessary action as per law.
10. Keeping in view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed
and disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Monika
