Madhya Pradesh High Court
Digambar Prasad Sharma vs M.P.M.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. on 7 November, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28296
1 WP-1171-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 7 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1171 of 2012
DIGAMBAR PRASAD SHARMA
Versus
M.P.M.K.V.V. CO. LTD.
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Narottam Sharma - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) The orders impugned Annexure P/1 and P/2 may kindly be
quashed.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts
and circumstances of the case same may kindly be granted to the
petitioner."
2. The brief facts of the case in short are that the petitioner was retired
on 31.07.2011 from the post of Assistant Engineer Sub Division, Dabra,
District Gwalior. At the relevant point of time, when the petitioner was
posted on the post of Assistant Engineer Sub Division, Dabra, District
Gwalior, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner
has filed a detailed reply to the above show cause notice. Without
considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and on the basis of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28296
2 WP-1171-2012
comments/documents offered by the concerning General
Manager/Committee constituted by respondent and without considering each
and every ground raised in the reply, a non-speaking and unreasoned order
dated 30.07.2011 (Annexure P/2) was issued by the Disciplinary Authority.
Thereafter, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority
which was rejected by non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 28.12.2011
(Annexure P/1).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that without
considering the facts and grounds raised by the petitioner in his reply/appeal
memo, the impugned orders were passed and which were non-speaking and
unreasoned orders. The Disciplinary Authority has passed the order dated
30.07.2011 on the basis of comments/documents given by the concerning
General Manager/Committee and the documents/comments submitted by the
Manager/Committee has not been supplied to the petitioner and relying upon
the aforesaid documents/comments, non-speaking and unreasoned order
dated 30.11.2011 issued by the Disciplinary Authority. It is further submitted
that the Appellate Authority, who is acting as a quasi-judicial authority, must
apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances and record valid and
justifiable reasons or grounds in support of its conclusion, thus, limited his
arguments for remand. In that context he placed reliance on the matter of
Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v/s Masood Ahmed Khan and others,
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the
prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as many
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28296
3 WP-1171-2012
as 17 transformers that failed in his Sub-Division, the petitioner did not take
any steps to remove the transformers from the installation site and sent them
to Area Stores, Gwalior. It is further submitted that show cause notice was in
terms of Rule 16 of M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules. The procedure as laid
down under Rule 16 for inflicting a minor penalty was duly followed.
Recovery of loss and censure are minor penalties under the CCA Rules and
they have followed the procedure prescribed in Rule 16 of M.P. Civil
Services (CCA) Rules.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Important part of the order dated 30.07.2011 (Annexure P/2) passed
by Disciplinary Authority reads as under:-
"2. AND WHEREAS, Shri Sharma, AE submitted reply
dtd.07.07.11 against the above show cause notice dtd.27.10.09
which has been duly considered sympathetically and carefully in
the light of available documents/comments offered by the
concerning General Manager/Committee constituted to decide
such cases. Considering overall circumstances and facts of the
case, it has finally been decided to impose a laser penalty of
CENSURE along with recovery of Rs.8994/- (Rs.Eigh thousand
nine hundred ninety four only) in lieu of losses to the
Board/Company, in place of the proposed punishment.
3. THEREFORE, Shri DP Sharma, AE (Rural) S/Dn. Dabra, is
hereby CENSURED along-with a recovery of Rs.8994/- in one
instalment. "
7. From perusal of the order dated 30.07.2011, it is clear that the
Disciplinary Authority, while passing an order imposing punishment of a
Government servant, is exercising quasi-judicial powers and even the quasi-
judicial orders must be speaking orders. The authority must apply its mind to
the entire facts and circumstances and record valid and justifiable reasons or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28296
4 WP-1171-2012
grounds in support of its conclusion. 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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28296
5 WP-1171-2012
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".
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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28296
6 WP-1171-2012
(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. Even the Appellate Authority has also not considered the facts and
grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal as well as reply submitted
before the Disciplinary Authority and by non-speaking and unreasoned order
dated 28.12.2011, appeal was rejected. Important part of the order dated
28.12.2011 (Annexure P/1) reads as under:-
"और यह क, ी शमा ारा उ ह दए गए द ड के व अपील द.12-09-2011 तुत
क गई।
और यह क, अपील म तुत अिभलेख एवं दए गए त य का पर ण कया गया।
संपूण करण पर वचारोपरांत ी शमा ारा तुत अपील को 'अ वीकार' कए जाने का
िनणय िलया गया।
अतः एत ारा ी ड ०पी०शमा, सेवािनवृ सहायक यं ी क अपील द.12-09-2011 को
'अ वीकार (rejected) करते हुए आदे श .CGM/GR/02-A/2k11/370-71 dt.30.07.2011 से
उ ह दये गए द ड को 'यथावत' रखा जाता है ।"
13. The documents/comments offered by the concerning General
Manager/Committee constituted to decide such cases had not been supplied
to the petitioner and on the basis of documents/comments offered by the
concerning General Manager/Committee constituted to decide such cases,
the impugned order dated 30.07.2011 was issued by the Disciplinary
Authority and not a single ground was considered by the Disciplinary
Authority before issuing the impugned order dated 30.07.2011. In reply
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28296
7 WP-1171-2012
dated 07.07.2011 (Annexure P/4), petitioner has stated various facts and
grounds and facts and grounds mentioned in the reply have not at all
considered by the Disciplinary Authority. As the impugned order entails civil
consequences, it was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to assign
reasons by dealing with each and every fact and ground raised by the
petitioner in his reply dated 07.07.2011. However, the Disciplinary
Authority has failed to consider and decide the said facts and grounds.
14. In view of the above discussion and the circumstances of the case,
I am left with no choice but to set aside the order dated 28.12.2011
(Annexure P/1) passed by the Appellate Authority and order dated
30.07.2011 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
15. Consequently, as the petitioner has already retired on 31.07.2011
and therefore, no liberty is granted to the respondents to take action in
accordance with law and the respondents are directed to give the
consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
16. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition stands disposed
of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Monika
