Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Rajesh Kanchan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6559
1 WP-15914-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 20th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 15914 of 2023
DR RAJESH KANCHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Rudra Pratap Singh Kaurav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kaushlendra Singh Tomar - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated
26.06.2023 (Annexure P-21), whereby the punishment of recovery of
Rs.3,54,891/- has been imposed upon the petitioner on account of certain
misconduct allegedly found proved against him.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular contention
that after having issued a charge-sheet under Rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, it was incumbent upon the
respondents to conduct regular departmental enquiry and than alone the
punishment order could have been passed. However, in the instant case, after
the petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet, the impugned order has
directly been passed, which is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case Bholeram Soni
Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 1 MPLJ 626 and another judgment in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6559
2 WP-15914-2023
the case of Union of India and others Vs. Ajay Agarwal passed in
M.P.No.1798/2017.
3. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
since a minor punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner, the regular
departmental enquiry was not required to be conducted. He further submits
that the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 15.09.2017 (Annexure
P-17), whereby the Disciplinary Authority initially imposed the punishment.
It is his submissions that writ petition is not maintainable for want of
challenge to the order passed by Disciplinary Authority.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Initially a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner vide memo dated
07.10.2006 (Annexure P-4). A perusal of this charge-sheet goes to show that
a major penalty proceedings was initiated against the petitioner under Rule
14. The petitioner submitted the detail reply to this charge-sheet on
17.10.2006 which has been brought on record as Annexure P-6. Thereafter,
the Commissioner Gwalior, Division Gwalior passed the order dated
15.09.2009 (Annexure P-17) imposing penalty of stoppage of two
increments without cumulative effect and also directed to recover the loss of
Rs.3,52,891/-.
Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which has
also suffered dismissal vide order dated 26.06.2023 (Annexure P-21). The
appellate Authority has modified the punishment by removing the
punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect and has
upheld the order, so far as recovery part is concerned.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6559
3 WP-15914-2023
6. The Apex Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India
and others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180 held in para - 3 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."
7. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Bholeram
(Supra), wherein in para-7, this Court held as under :
"7. The core issue is whether in the aforesaid factual backdrop, it
was necessary to conduct the enquiry. Disciplinary authority
opined that since the allegations are based on documentary
evidence, there is no need to conduct a departmental enquiry. In
the opinion of this Court, the point involve in this matter is no
more res integra. The curtains are finally drawn by the Apex Court
in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj (Supra). In the said case, the Apex
Court opined as under :-
"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."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Thus, it is settled proposition of law that when a major punishment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6559
4 WP-15914-2023
proceedings is initiated and the allegations leveled against the incumbent are
factual which has been denied by him, a regular department enquiry is
required to be conducted. Since no enquiry is conducted, the impugned order
of punishment is unsustainable.
So far as the submission of learned counsel for the respondents with
regard to the maintainability of this petition for want of challenge to the
order dated 15.09.2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority is concerned, it
is observed that the said order since merged with the order passed by the
appellate Authority, it is sufficient if the petitioner challenges the appellate
order.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 15.09.2009
(Annexure P-17) and the order dated 26.06.2023 (Annexure P-21) are set
aside. The matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct
departmental enquiry from the stage after the petitioner has submitted his
reply to the charge-sheet and after concluding the regular departmental
enquiry, fresh decision be taken in the matter.
With aforesaid terms and observations, the petition stands allowed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
bj/-
