[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivkumar Shrivastava vs State Of Mp on 11 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32388
1 WP-8114-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 11th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 8114 of 2020
SHIVKUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Dudawat - learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - learned Government Advocate for
respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):
(i) Issuing a writ of certiorari or mandamus or any other suitable writ
or order thereby quashing the impugned order dated 26.7.2018
(Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no.1 in Appeal
No.8693/59/22/Msic.-15/Apeal/18 and order dated 04.02.2015
(Annexure P/5) passed by respondent no.3 in case no.Q/Dev./Est./23-
4/91/2014.
(ii) To pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case, to grant relief to the petitioner.
(iii) Cost of petition may also be awarded to the petitioner.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that at the relevant point
of time, petitioner was posted at Janpad Panchayat Karera, District Shivpuri.
The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj Directorate vide order dated 31.5.2014
had directed all information on webportal Panchayat Darpan shall be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32388
2 WP-8114-2020
uploaded upto 30.6.2014. From overleaf of said order (Annexure P/2) it is
evident that Janpad Panchayat Karera District Shivpuri had already uploaded
information of 65 Gram Panchayat out of 66 on aforesaid web portal of
Panchayat Darpan. It is further submitted that with intention to harass
petitioner, respondent No.2 issued show-cause notice to petitioner on
12.5.2014 by making imposition of penalty under Rule 10(4) of the M.P.
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 on the
ground that petitioner had not uploaded the all information on webportal,
Panchyat Darpan compeletely. It is further submitted that as per Annexure
P/2 dated 31.05.2014, the time limit for uploading the information was
extended up to 30.06.2014 and before expiry of this deadline, the petitioner
had already uploaded the information of 65 out of 66 Gram Panchayats. It is
submitted that without considering that petitioner still had time up to
30.06.2014 to complete the uploading, the show-cause notice was issued on
12.05.2014, ignoring the extended timeline. Thereafter, petitioner submitted
a detailed reply, which was not considered by respondents and the impugned
punishment order dated 04.02.2015 was issued whereby one annual
increment was withheld without cumulative effect. Thereafter, petitioner
preferred an appeal by mentioning the detailed facts and grounds before the
Appellate Authority but the Appellate Authority did not consider the appeal
and passed non-speaking and unreasoned order. At the time of passing
impugned punishment order dated 4.2.2015, the aforesaid aspects has not
been considered and only on the basis of recommendation of PSC, the appeal
was rejected by passing non-speaking and unreasoned punishment order. It
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32388
3 WP-8114-2020
is further submitted that in his reply, the petitioner denied the charges
levelled against him. As per the judgment in O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of
India and others, (2001) 9 SCC 180 , when the charges are denied by the
delinquent employee, even for imposing a minor penalty, a departmental
inquiry is necessary. However, without conducting a regular departmental
inquiry, the impugned punishment order has been issued, which is contrary
to law.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made
by learned counsel for petitioner and supported the impugned order. It is
further submitted that after following the due procedure and considering the
detailed reply of petitioner, impugned order has rightly been passed by the
concerned authority by imposing minor penalty in accordance with law.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From the submissions and material placed on record, it is evident
that at the relevant point of time, petitioner was posted at Janpad Panchayat
Karera, District Shivpuri. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj Directorate,
vide order dated 31.05.2014, had directed that all information be uploaded
on the Panchayat Darpan web portal by 30.06.2014. The overleaf of the said
order (Annexure P/2) demonstrates that Janpad Panchayat Karera had
already uploaded the information of 65 out of 66 Gram Panchayats prior to
issuance of the show-cause notice. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply
to the show-cause notice denying the allegations, however, the same was not
considered and the impugned punishment order dated 04.02.2015 was passed
withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect. It is further
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32388
4 WP-8114-2020
noted that petitioner had categorically denied the charges levelled against
him. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of O.K.
Bhardwaj (supra), where the charges are denied, even for imposition of a
minor penalty, a departmental inquiry is mandatory. In the present case, no
such inquiry was conducted. Therefore, the impugned punishment order
suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice and is contrary to
the settled legal position.
6. From perusal of the punishment order issued by the Disciplinary
Authority dated 26.7.2018 and appeal rejection order dated 4.2.2015 passed
by Appellate Authority it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority and
Appellate Authority while passing the orders imposing punishment upon
petitioner, is exercising quasi judicial power and even the quasi judicial
order must be a speaking order. The Disciplinary Authority and Appellate
Authority must apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances and
record valid and justifiable reason and all grounds in support of its
conclusion.
7. On perusal of the punishment order, it does not appear to be a
speaking one.
8. 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32388
5 WP-8114-2020
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.
9. 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.
10. 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
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.
11. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32388
6 WP-8114-2020
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 sub-
paragraphs 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 decisionmaking 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 Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v.
Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553, 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".
12. As disciplinary authority has issued a non-speaking and
unreasoned order, therefore, in absence of reason in the punishment order
cannot be compensated by disclosure of reason in the appellate order,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32388
7 WP-8114-2020
therefore, the argument of counsel for respondent is not sustainable that the
appellate order is reasoned and speaking order. 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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32388
8 WP-8114-2020
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
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 Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v.
L.K. Ratna and others,(1986) 4 SCC 537, it has been
held:
"......after the blow suffered by the initial
decision, it is difficult to contemplate
complete restitution through an appellate
decision. Such a case is unlike an action for
money or recovery of property, where the
execution of the trial decree may be stayed
pending appeal, or a successful appeal may
result in refund of the money or restitution of
the property, with appropriate compensation
by way of interest or mesne profits for the
period of deprivation. And, therefore, it
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32388
9 WP-8114-2020
seems to us, there is manifest need to ensure
that there is no breach of fundamental
procedure in the original proceeding, and to
avoid treating an appeal as an overall
substitute for the original proceeding."
44. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court quashes the
show cause notice as also the order dated 19.03.2008
passed by the third respondent. In view of that, the
appellate order has no legs to stand and accordingly is
quashed."
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union
of India & Ors. (2001) 9 SCC 180, has held as under:-
"3. While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court
having regard to the rule position which expressly says that
"withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative
effect" is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with
the second proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an
opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have
his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges
against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they
are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also
be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle
of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed
with."
14. In view of the above discussion and the facts and circumstances of
the case as well as settled principles of law, I am left with no choice but to
set aside the impugned punishment order dated 26.7.2018 and appeal
rejection order dated 4.02.2015 and accordingly I do so.
15. Consequently respondents are directed to give all consequential
benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order and as petitioner has already retired,
therefore, no liberty is granted to the respondents to take action against the
respondents.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32388
10 WP-8114-2020
16. With aforesaid observations and directions, present Writ Petition is
hereby disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Ahmad
