Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr.S.K.Tiwari vs State Of M.P. on 25 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19249
1 WP. No. 3958 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 25th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3958 of 2012
DR.S.K.TIWARI
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Shidharth Sharma - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Monika Mishra - learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):
"(i) The order impugned Annexure P/1 may kindly be
quashed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19249
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case same may kindly be
granted to the petitioner."
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, at the relevant
time, the petitioner was given the charge of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Hospital
Superintendent. He discharged his duties with utmost devotion. A show cause
notice (Annexure P/2) was served upon the petitioner, levelling the allegation that
the target required to be achieved in the case of the family planning operation could
not be achieved. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause
notice in which it has been specifically stated by the petitioner that the services are
being provided and there is not much density in Sheopur. It is further stated that all
the schemes of the State have been duly advertised and promotional scheme has
been launched. Thereafter, a direction was again issued vide order dated 03.03.2011
(Annexure P/4), stating that the target directed to be achieved, i.e., 747, could not be
achieved, and that the said target should be achieved by 31st March, 2011.
Thereafter, the petitioner has again taken supervisory mode of his department and
has issued specific direction. Copy of such direction which has been issued marked
as Annexure P/5. It is further submitted that the Collector was not ready to record
his satisfaction, therefore, he has written some letter to the Health Commissioner
and Health Commissioner has served a notice vide Annexure P/6 to the petitioner
and another show cause notice vide Annexure P/7 has been served upon the
petitioner. In these notices, it has been alleged that only 1626 operations have been
achieved and the petitioner is doing private practice while it is being banned and it
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19249
has also been asked that why two increments without cumulative effect be not
stopped. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid show cause
notice vide Annexure P/8 and Annexure P/9 to the concerned authority. After
submission of reply, vide order dated 28.9.2011 (Annexure P/1) has been passed
without considering the reply to the petitioner and without passing any speaking
order, without assigning any reason. It is submitted that the law is well settled
with respect to the fact that non-achieving the target does not amount misconduct
as has been decided by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of State of
Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Lala Ram reported in 2002 (1) WLC (Raj.) 189 which
was followed in Civil Writ Petition No. 804/2016 in the case of Kedar Mal
Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. which was decided on 21.12.2016,
wherein the Court has held that non-fulfillment of target of recovery in achieving
the benchmark by the petitioner in itself could not constitute a misconduct under
the Conduct Rules and no other allegation is levelled against the petitioner,
except in failing to achieve the target of recovery. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon judgment dated 12.11.2014 passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of S.D. Bind Vs. Union of India & Others. Hence,
the petitioner has challenged aforesaid punishment order by filing the present
writ petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the argument made
by the counsel for the petitioner by filing the reply and has argued that only a
minor punishment of stopping one increment with non-cumulative effect has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19249
been imposed after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Admittedly, the petitioner has filed reply to the show cause notice issued to him
and after considering the reply, finding the reply unsatisfactory, the punishment
of stoppage of one increment with non cumulative effect was inflicted upon the
petitioner, which is a minor punishment. No cause of action arises to the
petitioner to challenge the order as the same is for minor punishment. He has
prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. From perusal of the record it is seen that non-achieving the target with respect
to conducting the Vasectomy operation, the notice was issued to the petitioner
and after receiving the reply to the aforesaid notice, the impugned order has been
passed on 28.9.2011, whereby he has been punished of stoppage of one
increment with non cumulative effect. Non- achieving the target is not a
misconduct under the Conduct Rules as has been held by the Division Bench of
Rajasthan High Court in the case of Lala Ram (Supra), wherein the Division
Bench has held as under:-
"15. We are, therefore, of the opinion that aforesaid
procedure by which the practice of subjecting a person
for disciplinary proceedings for punishing him for mere non-
fulfillment of projected targets without anything more
does not warrant imposing of any punishment. It only
warrants issuing note of advice and that if there is no
sufficient material of existing and persisting criminality in
the area or there are statistics suggesting that the breaches of
the Excise Act and rules framed thereunder which have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19249
been detected are too scant to match the notoriety of the area
for commission of such breaches of law or committing
offences. In the absence of any relevant material the
punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is
otherwise not sustainable.
16. The principle enunciated in Sunil Grover's case is
relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case. One must
make a distinction between cases of targets fixed for positive
results from implementing any statute or policy of Govt.
in any field of achievements on the one hand and targets
fixed for registering number of cases for breaches or
violation of law, which is dependent on actual commission of
breaches/ obligations by the subjects of such law. Number of
breaches or violations of law cannot be presumed to take
place so as to make it incumbent upon an office to register
and detect minimum number of cases of such breaches.
Acting with vigilance and registration of cases are not
necessarily one and same thing. The latter activity can only
be justified on detection of breaches or violations of law.
Without finding any such existing breaches so as to establish
nexus between officer's conduct with the alleged act of
negligence, no adverse (5 of 5) [CW-804/2016]
consequence of punishment can befall the incumbent. One
cannot countenance motivation to register a sizable
number of cases for breach of law, to windowdress the
effectiveness of law through demonstrative statistic. It is
a bad governance and counter productive to breed any
respect for law to be an effective means of social change,
apart from the fact that it reflects a sad commentary on
policy framers who start with assumption that laws framed
by the State shall not receive general acceptability and will
result in large scale non-observance of law by the people
who are to be its subject. Compelling any office to register an
officer of the State to involve a minimum number of people
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19249
in accusation of law breaking at the pains of suffering
disciplinary enquiry solely for non- fulfilment of such target
is anything but reasonable without material to suggest that
cases of such breaches do exist, but has gone undetected due
to negligence of the officer. It leads to registering
increasingly false and non-existent cases to make up the
statistic. In order to obviate such abuse, it is necessary that
before an incumbent is held negligent in discharge of his
duties, such nexus is established."
7. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in the case of Kedar Mal Meena
(Supra) and it was observed that "Indisputably, in the instant case non-
fulfillment of target of recovery in achieving the benchmark by the petitioner in
itself could not constitute a misconduct under the Conduct Rules, 1971 and no
other allegation is levelled against the petitioner, except in failing to achieve the
target of recovery and the impugned order was quashed." Similarly is the case
of the petitioner that he has failed to achieve the target of operation of
Vasectomy and was inflicted of punishment of stoppage of one increment
without cumulative effect. The non-achievement of target does not amount to
misconduct as per Conduct Rules. As per judgment of S.D. Bind (supra):
"15 That apart, another aspect of the matter warrants
consideration. The irregularities which is found against
the petitioner is only non following of certain procedure
in the matter of awarding contract. The question is as to
whether such an irregularity in the matter of following
the procedure can be termed as a misconduct. The
Supreme Court has considered the aforesaid aspect in the
case of Union of India v. J. Ahmed (AIR 1979 SC
1022) which has been followed again by the Supreme
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19249
Court in the case of Inspector Prem Chand v. Govt. of
National Capital Territory of Delhi and others [(2007)
4 SCC 1022]; wherein it has been held by the Supreme
Court that merely lack of efficiency, failure to attain the
highest standard of administrative ability or negligent or
careless wat of dealing with a matter on one isolated may
not constituted a misconduct for which punishment can
be imposed.
16. In the present case apart from the fact that the
Division Bench has made the observations as reproduced
herein above and interfered with the imposition of cost, it
found that there was certain discrepancy in the guidelines
laid down and, therefore, in paragraph 9 fresh guidelines
for future action was issued. Once this is the factual
scenario then merely because the petitioner failed to
follow the guidelines for once, it cannot be said that the
petitioner has committed misconduct in the matter. At
best action of the petitioner may fall in the category of
careless or negligence in the matter of dealing with the
case once an isolated occasion and if the principles laid
down by the Supreme Court as indicated in the case of J.
Ahmed (supra) is applied, we are of the considered view
that allegations levelled even do not amount to
misconduct for which action can be taken.
17. As the Tribunal has ignored all these aspects, it is a fit
case where interference should be made and entire action
of the department is quashed."
In such circumstances and following the judgment passed by the Rajasthan High
Court in the case of Lala Ram (Supra) and a judgment passed by the Division
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19249
Bench of this Court in the case of S.D. Bhind (supra), the order impugned is per
se illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable, accordingly, the order dated 28.9.2011
(Annexure P/1) passed by the concerned authority is hereby quashed.
Consequently, the respondent/concerned authority is directed to grant the
increment to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of the certified copy of this order.
8. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed.
9. No order as to costs.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
Ahmad
