Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jyoti Arya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29457
1 WP-31838-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 9 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 31838 of 2024
JYOTI ARYA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aviral Vikas Khare learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.08.2024 imposing the
penalty of withholding one increment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of punishment
of withholding of increment is a minor punishment under Rule 10 (iv) MP
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred as
Rules, 1966), but the order of punishment has been passed without following
the procedure of imposition of minor punishment under Rule 16 of Rules,
1966.
The respondents have filed the reply and in the reply the only
objection has been raised that the present petition has been filed without
availing the alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal.
Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29457
2 WP-31838-2024
impugned order has been passed in patent violation of the statutory provision
of Rule 16, therefore, the petition cannot be dismissed only on the ground of
availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that the
present petition cannot be declined to entertain only on the ground of the
availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy. The order of
punishment of withholding of an increment has been passed in a patent
violation of Rule 16 of Rules, 1966. The law relating to entertaining the writ
petition despite an alternative and efficacious remedy is well settled
Whirlpool Corporation Vs.Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai reported in
1998 (8) SCC 1, where the Apex Court held that there is no absolute bar to
High Court to entertain the writ petition despite the availability of an
alternative remedy of appeal, in case if the order is passed without
jurisdiction or any patent violation of any statutory rule in violation of
principal of natural justice or in malafide exercise of powers, the High Court
can entertain a writ petition.
In view of the aforesaid, the objection raised by the respondent for
dismissal of writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative
remedy is rejected.
Upon perusal of the impugned order and the record, it is pellucid that
the impugned order of punishment of stoppage of increment has been passed
only after giving notice asking for the explanation without following the
procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rules, 1966 for imposing of
minor punishment.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29457
3 WP-31838-2024
This court in the case of Anjali Rohira Vs. State of MP and Ors passed
in WP No.13855/2024 decided on 07.04.2025 considered the similar issue
and after referring to the provisions of the Rule 16 held as under :-
8. Upon perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it is pellucid that the notice
has to be issued to a government servant in writing of the proposal
to take action against him and of imputations of misconduct and
misbehavour on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him a
reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may
wish to make against the proposal. Sub-Rule (b) of Rule 16
provides that an inquiry in the matter laid down in sub-Rule (3) of
(23) of Rule 14, in every case.
9. In the present case, neither the imputations of misconduct or
misbehavour on which it is proposed to be taken was framed or
communicated to the petitioner and the order has been passed
without conducted any inquiry.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj vs.
Union of India & others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180 has held as
under :
"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."
11. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Ashok
Kumar Sharma vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut
Vitaran Co. Ltd. & others by order dated 27.02.2018 passed in
W.P .No.2200/2017 has held has under :
''Taking the second issue first as to whether it was within the
competence of the authority concerned to have inflicted the minor
penalty of stoppage of one increment with noncumulative effect
for a period one year without holding a departmental enquiry as
contemplated under Rule 14 of the Rules 1966, the same is settled
at rest by the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in O.K.
Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and others [(2001) 9 SCC 180]
wherein it is held:
"3. While we agree with the first proposition of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29457
4 WP-31838-2024
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.''
12. The same view has been taken by Co-ordinate Bench at
Gwalior in the matter of Rajendra Kumar Sharma Vs. State of MP
passed in WP No.18375/2019 dated 04.09.2019 wherein it has
been held that order of minor punishment cannot be passed
without compliance of the provisions of Rule 16 of Rules, 1966.
In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 20.08.2024 of minor punishment is quashed. The liberty is
granted to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, if
need so arises.
The period of suspension shall be treated on duty as per the
government circular dated 13.01.2005 subject to the fresh order, if any
passed by the competent authority.
With the aforesaid, the present petition stands allowed and disposed
of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
