Madhya Pradesh High Court
S.K. Joshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7925
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 25th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 10007 of 2024
S.K. JOSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anand Agrawal - advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain - G.A. appearing on behalf of Advocate
General.
ORDER
1] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India against issuance of charge sheet dated
27/02/2024, whereby a departmental inquiry has been initiated against the
petitioner on the allegations that he did not appear before the High Court
and did not file the return/reply in WP No.28001/2019 which was
disposed of ex-parte against the State on 07/01/2020, directing that the
family pension be given to the writ petitioner.
2] In brief, the facts of the case are that one Smt. Mukti Mishra filed
the aforesaid writ petition No.28001/2019, being wife of late Shri Arun
Mishra, claiming family pension. In the aforesaid petition, this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7925
passed the final order on 07/01/2020 disposing of the petition with a
direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with the
judgment relied upon by her, and the respondents were directed to decide
the same in accordance with law within a period of three months.
Subsequently, the representation filed by the said writ petitioner Smt.
Mukti Mishra was allowed and it was sent for confirmation to the
Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, who also wrote a letter
dated 25/11/2020 to the State Government, informing that the appropriate
orders be passed to ensure that the family pension is given to the
petitioner Smt. Mukti Mishra.
3] After attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner also retired
on 31/12/2021. However, petitioner was issued the charge sheet on
27/02/2024 alleging the dereliction of his duties, that an ex-parte order
was passed against the State directing the respondents to pay the family
pension.
4] Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to
the order dated 07/01/2020 passed by this Court in WP No.28001/2019, to
submit that it was not an ex-parte order, and in-fact it was an order
whereby the petition was simply disposed of with a direction to the
petitioner to submit a representation which was to be decided by the
respondents in accordance with law. It is submitted that there was no
occasion for the respondents to frame a charge that it was because of the
petitioner's dereliction of duties, that the aforesaid order was passed by the
High Court. It is also submitted that since an order has already been
passed by the State authorities that the said petitioner Smt. Mukti Mishra
is entitle to family pension, and that has also not been challenged by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7925
State before any other authority, it cannot be said that any loss has
occasioned to the State. Thus, it is submitted that even on a bare perusal of
the charges, the same cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law. Hence, it
is submitted that the petition be allowed.
5] Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand has opposed the
prayer. A reply has also been filed by the respondents and it is submitted
that the petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner will have ample
opportunities to contest the matter on merits after leading the evidence.
Thus, it is submitted that no case for interference is made out.
6] Heard. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of
the documents filed on record, this Court finds that the controversy
revolves around the order dated 07/01/2020, passed by this Court in WP
No.28001/2019. Thus, it would be apt to refer to the same at this juncture,
the relevant excerpts of the same are as under:-
"By the instant petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated
14.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) whereby her claim for grant of family pension
has been rejected by the authorities stating that the deceased employee has
not completed 10 years of qualifying service and, accordingly, the family
pension cannot be granted.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed certain
judgments in which it is observed that for grant of family pension even a
day's service is sufficient.
The learned Govt. Advocate submits that if this petition is disposed of by
directing the authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh taking
note of the judgments passed by the High Court on earlier occasion, he
would have no objection.
Considering the above, the order dated 14.10.2011 is set aside and the
matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 for considering the claim of
the petitioner for grant of family pension. The petitioner is directed to submit
a fresh representation alongwith the judgments of this Court on which she is
relying upon before the authorities. The authorities, while considering the
claim of the petitioner, shall take note of the orders passed by this Court in
respect of qualifying service and pass fresh orders regarding grant of family
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7925
pension to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a
period of three months from the date of submitting the fresh representation
along with the certified copy of this order by the petitioner. With the
aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of."
(Emphasis supplied)
7] It is also found that the matter came up for hearing before this Court
for the first time on 07/01/2020 itself, and on a bare perusal of the
aforesaid order it would reveal that this Court has not directed the State to
grant family pension to the petitioner Smt. Mukti Mishra, and what was
directed was to decide the petitioner's representation also taking note of
the judgments passed by this court and relied upon by the petitioner Smt.
Mishra. Admittedly, the representation has been allowed by the competent
authority on 03/09/2020, and it has been sent to the Commissioner,
Commercial Tax Department, who in turn has sent this communication to
the State Government on 25/11/2020.
8] In such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is totally at a
loss to understand as to how and in what circumstances, a departmental
inquiry can be initiated against the petitioner who was neither present in
the Court, nor was responsible in any manner for the outcome of the said
petition. It appears that the authority which has framed the charges has
either misread the order passed by this Court or misinterpreted it, and has
proceeded to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioner, in which
following charges have been framed:-
"आरोऩ क्रम ांक -1 आऩ ऩर आरोपऩत है कक खण्डव सांभ ग में आऩकी ऩदस्थ ऩन के दौर न
व हन च ऱक स्व . श्री अरूण कुम र ममश्र की ऩत्नि श्रीमती मुपि ममश्र द्व र ऩररव र ऩेंशन
प्र प्त करने हे तु म ननीय उच्च न्य य ऱय खांडऩीठ , जबऱऩुर में डब्ल्यू .ऩी. क्रम ांक 28001/2019
द यर की गई , त्नजसमें य मचक कत ा द्व र सांभ गीय उऩ युि , व त्नणत्नययक कर , खण्डव को भी
प्रमतव दी बन य गय थ । आऩके द्व र य मचक के सांबांध में मुख्य ऱय को सूचन प्रद न नही
की ज ने से श सन की ओर से य मचक में कोई प्रभ री अमधक री मनयुि नही हो सक ।
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7925
आऩके द्व र म ननीय न्य य ऱय में उऩत्नस्थत होकर जव बद व भी प्रस्तुत नही ककय गय ।
म ननीय उच्च न्य य ऱय में श सन की ओर से पवभ ग क ऩऺ प्रस्तुत नहीां ककये ज ने से
म ननीय उच्च न्य य ऱय द्व र एकऩऺीय आदे श कदन ांक 07.01.2020 ऩ ररत ककय ज कर
ऩररव र ऩेंशन कदये ज ने के मनदे श कदये गये है । इस प्रक र आऩके द्व र ऱ ऩरव ही की ज न
ऩररऱत्नऺत हुई है ।
आरोऩ क्रम ांक -2 आऩ ऩर आरोपऩत है कक आऩकी ऩदस्थ ऩन के दौर न डब्ल्यू .ऩी.क्रम ांक
28001/2019 में ऩ ररत एकऩऺीय आदे श कदन ांक 07.01.2020 के ऩश्च त आऩके द्व र उि
आदे श के सांबांध में श सकीय मह मधवि से अमभमत प्र प्त कर अऩीऱ की ज ने की क याव ही
ककये पबन स्व . श्री अरूण ममश्र की ऩत्नि श्रीमती मुपि ममश्र को ऩररव र ऩेंशन स्वीकृ मत
आदे श कदन ांक 03.09.2020 ऩ ररत ककय गय है । आऩके द्व र उि य मचक में ऩ ररत आदे श
कदन ांक 07.01.2020 के सांबांध मुख्य ऱय को भी अवगत नहीां कर य गय । इस प्रक र आऩके
द्व र न्य य ऱयीन प्रकरण को गांभीरत से न ऱेते हुए घोर ऱ ऩरव ही बरती गई है . त्नजससे
र जस्व की ऺमत सांभ पवत है ।"
9] A perusal of the aforesaid charges would also reveal that they are
bereft of any sense, are illogical and appear to have been framed without
application of mind , which cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law,
and hence, are liable to be and hereby quashed.
10] Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
krjoshi
