Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kartar Singh Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8027
1 WP-8497-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 8497 of 2015
KARTAR SINGH BAGHEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Shankar Raizada - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Sahil Sonkusale - Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 08.07.2014
(Annexure P/7) passed by the respondent No.5-Superintendent of Police,
Seoni District Seoni (M.P.) whereby punishment of withholding of amount
equivalent to one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect
was imposed. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2014
(Annexure P/9) whereby his appeal against the impugned punishment order
was rejected. His mercy petition was also dismissed by the respondent No.2-
Director General of Police, Bhopal vide order dated 29.01.2015 (Annexure
P/12).
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed on the post
of Constable in October, 1989 in the respondent-department and
subsequently he was promoted as Head Constable in the year 2009. He was
served with a charge sheet dated 16.11.2013 issued by the respondent No.5
for common proceedings. Reply to the charge sheet was submitted by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8027
2 WP-8497-2015
petitioner. The respondent No.5 without considering the reply filed by
petitioner to the charge sheet has noted down his disagreement with the reply
and has ordered for initiation of a departmental enquiry against the petitioner
and has appointed inquiry officer and presenting officer vide order dated
18.12.2013. The departmental enquiry was conducted wherein the petitioner
duly participated. After conclusion whereof, the enquiry report was prepared
and the same was served to the petitioner along with covering letter dated
23.06.2014 seeking his reply. The petitioner filed detailed reply to the
enquiry report on 03.07.2014. The disciplinary authority being dissatisfied
with the reply submitted by the petitioner, has passed the punishment order
dated 08.07.2014 of withholding of amount equivalent to one increment for a
period of one year with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved, the petitioner
preferred an appeal raising various grounds including the ground that he was
working on the post of Head Constable and he was not duty bound to carry
out the search of the vehicles; he was only directed to note down the vehicle
registration numbers at the relevant time. The appellate authority without
considering the grounds raised in the appeal in a mechanical manner rejected
the appeal filed by the petitioner on 25.08.2014 in terms of Annexure P/9.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a mercy petition/request letter to the
respondent No.2 which was also turned down vide order dated 29.01.2015
(Annexure P/12). Therefore, this petition has been filed.
3. It is argued that along with the petitioner, there were several other
officials/officers present at the relevant time and were rendering their duties
of checking the vehicles but no action has been taken against them; only the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8027
3 WP-8497-2015
petitioner has been targeted. The allegation made in the charge sheet against
the petitioner is that on 20.10.2013, he stopped Vehicle No. MP-18-C-9000
and has not taken any action despite finding it to be suspicious and has
permitted illegal transportation of the beef. The petitioner has produced the
Roznamcha-sanha entries which indicate that the Town Inspector was
accompanied by several persons including the petitioner. The vehicle was
stopped in front of the police station and was checked but permitted to run
which was intercepted on the next stop and it was found carrying beef. No
action was taken against the Town Inspector and other senior officers and the
petitioner has been made a scapegoat. Inviting attention to the depositions
recorded during departmental enquiry of witnesses namely Manju @ Majid,
Mohd. Salim, Sukhram Uike, Narayan Singh Kumhare, Devi Singh, Deepak
Kumar Paware, Ramprasad @ Ram Prakash, Mahesh Prasad Tiwari and Atal
Singh, it is argued that all of them has categorically admitted the fact that the
petitioner was only directed to note down the vehicle numbers and no other
work was assigned to the petitioner. It is further argued that the grounds
which have been taken in the appeal have not been considered by the
appellate authority and the appellate authority without application of mind, in
a mechanical manner, has passed the impugned order dated 25.08.2014
dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. To substantiate the
arguments, petitioner's counsel has relied upon the judgments passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank vs Krishna Narayan
Tewari reported in (2017) 2 SCC 308 and Ram Lal vs State of Rajasthan
reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8027
4 WP-8497-2015
4. It is further argued that there should be application of mind by the
appellate authority and there should be consideration of all the grounds
which have been raised before the appellate authority. It argued that he is
aware of the fact that this Court is having a limited jurisdiction to entertain
the writ petition against the punishment order arising out of a departmental
enquiry. No fact-finding enquiry can be conducted and reappreciation of
evidence cannot be done in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India; however, if the allegations/charges which are levelled against the
delinquent are prima facie not made out and the sole ground which has been
raised by him regarding authority of the petitioner to search the vehicles is
not considered by the authorities then the said question goes to the root of the
case. That should have been dealt with by the disciplinary authority or by the
appellate authority but this has not been done in the present case. Even
otherwise, in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. vs Masood Ahmed Khan reported in
2010 0 Supreme (SC) 826 : (2010) 9 SCC 496, a reasoned order should have
been passed by the authorities. The appellate authority has not considered the
entire grounds raised by the petitioner and in a mechanical manner in a single
line observing that no ground was taken by the petitioner to disagree with the
punishment order, therefore, the appeal was dismissed. He has prayed for
quashment of the impugned orders.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently
opposed the contentions and supported the impugned orders. It is submitted
that while exercising a review jurisdiction, the High Court cannot
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8027
5 WP-8497-2015
reappreciate the evidence at this stage. He has drawn attention of this Court
to the inquiry report (Annexure P/5) which points out the guilt of petitioner
and has submitted that a detailed enquiry was conducted into the matter. The
petitioner duly participated in the departmental enquiry and he was granted
ample opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The petitioner's counsel
could not point out any flaw in the procedure which has been adopted by the
authorities. Under these circumstances, the procedure adopted by the
disciplinary authority is just and proper and does not warrant any
interference. Even the appellate authority has considered the entire record
pertaining to the departmental enquiry and thereafter passed the punishment
order. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs Bhupendra Singh reported in 2024
SCC OnLine SC 1908 with reference to paragraph 23 onwards. It is argued
that the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence of the departmental
enquiry. The departmental enquiry can only be interfered with in exceptional
circumstances as has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India vs P. Gunasekaran reported in 2014 0 Supreme (SC)
813: (2015) 2 SCC 610. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. The record indicates that the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner
on 16.11.2013 levelling the following charges against the petitioner :
1- दनांक 20.10.13 को थाना लखनवाड़ा के सामने वाहन
चै कग के दौरान वाहन कमांक-एम०पी० 18/सी 9000 को
रोककर चैक करने के प ात वाहन सं द ध होने के बाद भी
उसके व कोई कायवाह न कर अपने कत य के ित घोर
लापरवाह एवं उदासीनता बरतना ।
2- गौमांश प रवहन करने वाले वाहनो पर पूणतः ितबंध
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8027
6 WP-8497-2015
लगाये जाने हे तु व र अिधका रयो ारा बार-बार िनदिशत
कये जाने के बाद भी उ वाहन के व कोई कायवाह न
कर छोड़ते हुए व र अिधका रय के आदे श क अवहे लना
करते हुए सं द ध आचरण का दशन करना।
8. It is an admitted position that the petitioner duly participated in the
departmental enquiry and after conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the
enquiry report was submitted to which he has responded. The disciplinary
authority found the reply submitted by the petitioner not satisfactory and has
passed the impugned order dated 08.07.2014 whereby punishment of
withholding of amount equivalent to one increment for a period of one year
with cumulative effect was imposed. On appeal being preferred, the same
was also rejected vide order dated 25.08.2014. The fact remains that a
detailed appeal was filed by the petitioner raising several grounds including
that the petitioner being posted as a Head Constable was not having any
authority to search the vehicles. He was only authorized to note down the
vehicle numbers as has been admitted by the witnesses who were examined
in the departmental enquiry. The order passed by the appellate authority
reflects that there is no consideration by it regarding the grounds raised by
the petitioner. Relevant extracts of the order of the appellate authority dated
25.08.2014 reads as under :
अपीलाथ ारा तुत अपील अ यावेदन, अपील
अ यावेदन पर पुिलस अधी क िसवनी के प क०
पुअ/ टे नो/िसवनी/अपील/04-ए/2014, दनांक 13.08.2014
ारा े षत कं डकावार ट प, व०जांच न ती अब एवं सेवा
ववरण का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया क अपीलाथ
ारा अपने अपील अ यावेदन म ऐसे कोई त य तुत नह ं
कये गये जो पुिलस अधी क िसवनी ारा दये गये द ड के
भाव को कम करने म सहायक हो अतः पुिलस अधी क
िसवनी ारा दया गया द ड सवथा उिचत पाते हुए अपीलाथ
०आर० कं० 431 करतार िसंह बघेल का अपील अ यावेदन
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8027
7 WP-8497-2015
वचारोपरात "अमा य" कया जाता है ।
9. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is reflected that the appellate
authority has only observed that the petitioner has not taken any ground in
the appeal which could make the appellate authority to disagree with the
findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and the appeal was dismissed.
The fact remains that the appellate authority should have considered all the
grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal memo and thereafter, giving
reasons and findings to the grounds raised by the petitioner, the authority
should have passed speaking order. The order passed by the appellate
authority is a non-speaking order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. (supra) has observed as follows :
12. The necessity of giving reason by a body or
authority in support of its decision came up for
consideration before this Court in several cases. Initially
this Court recognised a sort of demarcation between
administrative orders and quasi-judicial orders but with
the passage of time the distinction between the two got
blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a
vanishing point in the judgment of this Court in A.K.
Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262 : AIR
1970 SC 150] .
...
14. The expression "speaking order" was first coined
by Lord Chancellor Earl Cairns in a rather strange
context. The Lord Chancellor, while explaining the
ambit of the writ of certiorari, referred to orders with
errors on the face of the record and pointed out that an
order with errors on its face, is a speaking order. (See
pp. 1878-97, Vol. 4, Appeal Cases 30 at 40 of the
Report).
15. This Court always 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".
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8027
8 WP-8497-2015
10. Thus, if the aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court are considered in context with the facts of the present case, then it is
apparently clear that there is no application of mind by the appellate
authority and there is no consideration of the grounds raised in the appeal.
Under these circumstances, the order passed by the appellate authority dated
25.08.2014 is per se illegal and contrary to the judgment passed in the case
of Kranti Associates (supra). Hence, the order passed by the appellate
authority dated 25.08.2014 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back
to the appellate authority for reconsideration of the appeal filed by the
petitioner. The appellate authority is expected to follow the guidelines issued
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates (supra) and
after considering all the grounds raised by the petitioner, to pass a well-
reasoned order after giving audience to the petitioner. The entire exercise be
completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
11. In above terms, the petition stands disposed of finally. No order as to
costs.
The records pertaining to departmental enquiry be returned back to the
department concerned forthwith.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
