Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sudarshan Tiwari vs Municipal Corporation & Anr. on 23 July, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34379
1 WP-5053-2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 23rd OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5053 of 2005
SUDARSHAN TIWARI
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kumar Kesharwani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G.P. Singh - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This is a petition by the petitioner while praying for the following
reliefs:
"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash
the order dated 31.5.2005 (Annexure P-1) by issuing a
writ in the nature of certiorari.
(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to
direct the Economic Offence Bureau to conduct the
enquiry in the matter.
(iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare
the departmental enquiry conducted by the respondents
as vitiated as due procedure and norms and principles of
natural justice have not been followed.
(iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the
facts and circumstances of the case be also issued."
2. The facts as narrated in the petition reveal that petitioner was
appointed with respondent No.1 as Time Keeper in the year 1995. As there
were certain irregularities with respect to water supply connections, a
committee was constituted and the petitioner was included as In-charge for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34379
2 WP-5053-2005
illegal connections vide order dated 14/02/2001 (Annexure P/2). The work of
seizing and regularizing water supply connections was conducted during
March, 2001 to December, 2001. On 29.12.2001 certain receipt books which
were in possession of the petitioner were stolen. The petitioner lodged report
with Police Station Gopalganj, Sagar on 30.12.2001. Thereafter, vide order
dated 03.09.2001, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the
allegation that the petitioner did not deposit the amount as well as receipt
books with the Municipal Corporation, Sagar. The petitioner deposited the
amount on various dates with the respondent vide Annexure P/6 and by
02/01/2002 the petitioner had deposited Rs.5,02,411/-. Thereafter, the
petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 11.01.2002 contained in Annexure
P/7 in which as many as 8 charges were levelled against him. A reply to the
charge sheet was submitted by the petitioner and after the inquiry, an inquiry
report was prepared and consequently, the impugned order dated
31.05.2005 was passed, by which the petitioner was removed in terms of
Rule 10(8) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1966.
3. Counsel for the petitioner contended that it is a case where the
petitioner has been confronted with the impugned order only on the basis of
assumption. It is contended by the counsel that even the order of removal
itself clearly reveals that there was a mere apprehension regarding
embezzlement of public exchequer by the petitioner and only on the basis of
the said assumption the impugned order has been passed. Further, it is
contended by the counsel that it is a case where there was no material against
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34379
3 WP-5053-2005
the petitioner so as to justify the order of termination. None of the charges
could be established by the department. A team vide order dated 14.02.2001
(Annexure P/2) was constituted in which the present petitioner was also there
and vide order dated 02.03.2001 (Annexure P/3) passed by Mayor, Municipal
Corporation, Sagar, the petitioner was authorized to regularize the illegal
water supply connections, therefore, the petitioner has rightfully taken the
step to regularize the water supply connections. It is further contended by the
counsel that the petitioner was in possession of 3 receipt books No.35, 53 and
89 which were kept in the two wheeler of the petitioner and these receipt
books were stolen. Accordingly, a report was lodged with the Police Station
Gopalganj, Sagar on 30.12.2001 by the petitioner. It is contended by the
counsel that the aforesaid documents clearly prove that there was no
illegality whatsoever on the part of the petitioner. Inquiry report does not
reveal the exact quantum of amount which according to the respondent was
defalcated by the present petitioner. It is contended by the counsel that
conclusion of the inquiry which is contained in Annexure P/9 also clearly
reveals that it was advised by the Inquiry Officer that the matter should be
referred to the office of Accountant General, Gwalior and investigated by the
Economic Offence Bureau. However, as advanced by the Inquiry Officer in
his inquiry report dated 30.09.2003, the matter was not referred to any
prosecution agency and as on date no case has been registered. It is
contended by the counsel that the petitioner received the documents under
the Right to Information Act which have been brought on record alongwith
the rejoinder as Annexure P/16. It is further contended that it is clear that in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34379
4 WP-5053-2005
the order of removal there is no mention of any specific amount of
defalcation and as per the said report, 3 different amounts were shown and
there was a mere assumption that those amounts were defalcated by present
petitioner. It is contended by the counsel that in the present case, lokayukt
inquiry was also conducted which is contained in Annexure 1A-3 alongwith
the application for documents taken on record vide I.A. No.12504/2014. It is
also contended that there was no information of any kind of embezzlement
and thus, submits the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
4. Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has placed
reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates
Private Limited and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others reported in
(2010) 9 SCC 496 and the decision of High Court of Judicature at Bombay
i n Writ Petition No.9062/2011 (Union of India and others v. S.M. Padwal)
vide order dated 04.03.2024.
5. Counsel for the respondents submitted that in the present case, the
petitioner who was custodian of public fund not only defalcated the same but
also intentionally omitted to submit the receipt books just in order to
safeguard himself. He lodged a First Information Report with the police
regarding theft of those receipt books. It is contended by the counsel that the
petitioner was guilty of embezzlement of the aforesaid amount. It is evident
from the record that petitioner's conduct in the present case clearly reveals
that the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.23,982/- on 02.01.2002 when
an order dated 28.12.2001 was issued by the Commissioner, Municipal
Corporation, Sagar and the information was sought regarding the aforesaid
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34379
5 WP-5053-2005
receipt books. It is also contended by the counsel that a First Information
Report was also lodged by present petitioner after issuance of the letter of
Commissioner dated 28.12.2001 which finds mention in paragraph 10 of the
inquiry report submitted by Inquiry Officer. It is further evident from perusal
of the record that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to inform the
authorities that the receipt books were stolen and intentionally no specific
date was mentioned by the petitioner in the so called complaint lodged with
the Police Station Gopalganj, Sagar. Thus, it is contended by the counsel that
the impugned order has been passed after due analysis of evidence, and there
was ample evidence before the authorities. Accordingly, while taking into
consideration the material, the disciplinary authority has passed the order.
The order in absence of any infirmity or allegation of violation of principles
of natural justice or in absence of any illegality does not require any
interference.
6. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Perusal of the record reflects that the petitioner, who was working as
Time Keeper was confronted with an order of suspension which was later on
followed by the issuance of charge sheet. The charge sheet is contained in
Annexure P/7 and a perusal of charge sheet reveals that as many as 8 charges
were levelled against him. A composite reading of the charges reveals that
the petitioner was assigned duties of seizing and regularizing the water
supply connections and for the purposes of performance of the said duties,
the receipt books were issued to the petitioner and according to the charges, 3
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34379
6 WP-5053-2005
receipt books were issued to the petitioner bearing No.32, 53 and 89. The
charges reveal that according to the department, there should have been
recovery of Rs.15,00,000/- whereas petitioner deposited only Rs.73,982/-
and thus, according to the department, there was defalcation of
Rs.14,77,018/-. As per charge No.4, the petitioner was ordered to produce
the entire receipt books and deposit the entire recovered amount vide order
dated 28.12.2001. Thereafter the report was lodged by petitioner with Police
Station Gopalganj, Sagar on 30.12.2001.
9. The charge No.4 in the considered view of this Court is the main
charge as the same pertains to non-deposit of 3 receipt books as well as non-
deposit of the amount recovered by the petitioner from the persons who were
availing the water supply connections. As per charge No.4, the petitioner was
directed to deposit three receipt books vide order dated 28.12.2001, so also
deposit the entire amount so recovered by the petitioner from the consumers
of the water. After issuance of order dated 28.12.2001, the petitioner lodged
the report on 30.12.2001 with Police Station Gopalganj, Sagar.
10. A perusal of charge No.1 reveals that all three books were supplied
to the petitioner on 02.03.2001 and the said 3 receipt books remained in
possession of the petitioner throughout and as per the petitioner, a total
amount of Rs.5,02,411/- has been deposited by him till 02.03.2001. There
are no details that the said amount pertain to which receipt book. The column
no.6 of the table which is contained in Annexure P/7 reflects that it does not
refer to any of the receipt book which petitioner did not deposit and claims
that the same were stolen. Those receipt books were bearing No.32, 53 and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34379
7 WP-5053-2005
89. The petitioner upon receipt of notice dated 28.12.2001 did not submit any
reply, on the contrary, he lodged a report with the Police Station Gopalganj,
Sagar on 30.12.2001 that all the other books which were kept in two wheeler
were stolen in night at around 10:00 p.m. The report was lodged on
30.12.2001 and according to the petitioner, the said receipt books were stolen
at around 10:00 p.m. on 29.12.2001. Undisputedly, a notice dated 28.12.2001
was issued to the the petitioner by which he was called upon to produce the
aforesaid receipt books as well as to deposit the amount. The petitioner,
being the custodian of public funds was required to perform his duties with
utmost integrity and honesty. Even if all 3 receipt books were stolen and
even if the contention of the petitioner is assumed to be correct, if all those
receipt books were stolen, the petitioner was duty bound to bring to the
notice of the authority as to what was the total amount collected by the
petitioner while issuing receipt of those three receipt books.
11. At this juncture, if the stand of the petitioner to charge no.4 is
considered, it would reveal that the petitioner has made an attempt to state
that the order dated 28.12.2001 was received by the petitioner on 01.01.2002.
Further, it was the stand of the petitioner that the said receipt books were
stolen on 29.12.2001 at around 10 p.m. Petitioner has also stated that he
deposited Rs.23,982/- immediately. The aforesaid stand of the petitioner was
taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer
concluded that petitioner was well aware about the action which was being
taken against him and just in order to safeguard himself, he lodged the First
Information Report. It was also concluded by the Inquiry Officer that on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34379
8 WP-5053-2005
account of non-availability of three receipt books, it was impossible to assess
the exact amount of embezzlement as only the petitioner was in knowledge
of the fact as to what amount was recovered by the petitioner in lieu of the
receipts which were given to the consumers out of those three receipt books.
Undisputedly, in the present case, it is nowhere clarified as to what amount,
which was recovered by the petitioner against those three receipt books.
Apparently, there are no details of the amount which was received by the
petitioner from the consumers and towards which the receipts were issued by
the petitioner.
12. The interference with the disciplinary proceedings is limited and
the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & others vs. P. Gunasekaran -
2015 (2) SCC 610, while expressing its displeasure on the eventuality of
reappreciation of evidence in departmental proceedings undertaken by the
High Court, has laid down circumstances in which the High Court can
interfere. The Apex Court in the case of P. Gunasekaran (supra) has laid
down in Paragraph 13 as under:-
"13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case
the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v ) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which
findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34379
9 WP-5053-2005
appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it
shocks its conscience."
13. The Apex Court in the cases of Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur Vs.
State Bank of India and another, (2005) 1 SCC 13 and also State of Bihar
and others Vs. Phulpari Kumari, 2020 (2) SCC 130 held that the judicial
review of decision arrived at by the disciplinary authority is only limited and
cannot be interfered with, in absence of any arbitrariness in the decision or in
absence of any violation of principles of natural justice.
14. The Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration the report of the
Store Keeper dated 28.12.2001 and the Store Keeper in his report concluded
that receipt books were released to the petitioner and those three receipt
books bearing no.32, 53 and 89 were required to be deposited with the Head
of the Department after their audit but the same were not deposited. The
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Sagar also issued direction to the
present petitioner to deposit the aforesaid receipt books and accordingly, a
letter bearing no.155 dated 28.12.2001 was issued. The petitioner however
lodged the report on 30.12.2001 with the police informing that the aforesaid
three books were stolen from his two wheeler. It is evident from perusal of
the inquiry report that the petitioner after passing of order dated 28.12.2001
had lodged the report. Paragraph 8 of the inquiry report also reveals that the
Office of Assistant Superintendent had issued a letter dated 24.09.2001
informing that one of the receipt books bearing No.32 was issued to the
present petitioner but the said receipt book was not deposited by the
petitioner with the department. Therefore, the petitioner being the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34379
10 WP-5053-2005
responsible person to deal with the receipt books was custodian of the funds
and was expected to ensure utmost integrity and honesty and was duty bound
to act and discharge his duties with utmost discipline. The Apex Court in the
case of Regional Manager, UP SRTC Etawah and others Vs. Hoti Lal 2003
(3) SCC 605 has held as under :-
"10.........If the charged employee holds a position of
trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt
requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to
deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases
has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals
with public money or is engaged in financial
transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest
degree of integrity and trust-worthiness is must and
unexceptionable. Judged in that background,
conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do
not appear to be proper. We set aside the same and
restore order of learned Single Judge upholding order of
dismissal."
15. Thus, the aforesaid findings so arrived at by the Inquiry Officer
clearly reveal that there was sufficient evidence against the petitioner and
accordingly, the department while placing reliance on the said evidence
proceeded to pass the impugned order against the present petitioner.
16. The Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v. A.G.D.
Reddy reported in (2023) 14 SCC 391 has held as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34379
11 WP-5053-2005
"42. It is now well settled that the scope of judicial
review against a departmental enquiry proceeding is
very limited. It is not in the nature of an appeal and a
review on merits of the decision is not permissible. The
scope of the enquiry is to examine whether the decision-
making process is legitimate and to ensure that the
findings are not bereft of any evidence. If the records
reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, it is
not the function of the court in a judicial review to
reappreciate the same and arrive at an independent
finding on the evidence. This lakshman rekha has been
recognised and reiterated in a long line of judgments of
this Court."
(emphasis supplied)
17. The Apex Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate
Authority) and others v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava , reported in (2021) 2 SCC
612 has held as under:
"28. The constitutional court while exercising its
jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or
Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with
the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental
enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or
perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a
finding or where a finding is such that no man acting
reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at
those findings and so long as there is some evidence to
support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental
authority, the same has to be sustained."
18. A perusal of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court clearly
reveals that even if there is some evidence against the delinquent employee,
the Court would refrain from interfering with the penalty imposed by the
disciplinary authority.
19. Thus, in the present case, taking into consideration the fact that the
allegations against the petitioner were defalcation of amount of public
exchequer, the impugned order of imposition of major penalty has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34379
12 WP-5053-2005
passed. The said order, in the considered view of this Court, does not require
any interference.
20. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
vc
