Madhya Pradesh High Court
Konark Bharadwaj vs M.P. Rajya Krishi Viparan Board on 15 October, 2025
1
WP No. 25953 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 9th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 25953 of 2024
KONARK BHARADWAJ
Versus
M.P. RAJYA KRISHI VIPARAN BOARD AND OTHERS
.........................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Jubin Prasad - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rohit Jain - Advocate for the respondent.
..........................................................................................................
ORDER
(Reserved on 09.10.2025)
(Pronounced on 15.10.2025)
The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure
P-10 dated 10.08.2023 thereby dismissing the petitioner from service that
has been confirmed by the order Annexure P-12 in appeal dated
12.08.2024.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the
aforesaid penalty could not have been awarded to the petitioner because he
was visited with a second charge sheet on the same set of allegations and in
earlier round, a charge sheet was issued to him vide Annexure P-3 dated
10.10.2019 in response to which a departmental enquiry ensued which
resulted in passing of penalty order dated 24.02.2020 whereby the penalty
of extension of probation period by one year was awarded to the petitioner.
3. It is argued that thereafter on the same set of allegations a fresh
charge sheet was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P-6 dated
7.02.2022 which is totally unauthorized act on part of the respondents and
it is settled in law that second charge sheet on same set of allegations
cannot be issued.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a number of
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court to contend that second charge sheet
on same set of allegations cannot be issued and therefore, it is vehemently
argued that the penalty order of dismissal be set aside.
5. It is further argued that the respondents have taken a plea that the
earlier penalty order Annexure P-4 was reviewed and the fresh charge sheet
has been issued as a consequence of order passed by the reviewing
authority. It is argued that such contention cannot be accepted because there
is no provision for review in the service regulations of Respondent Board.
6. Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the Respondent-
Board that the power for review is very much there in the service
regulations as per Clause 38(three) thereof and therefore, the fresh charge
sheet having been issued in pursuance to order of the reviewing authority,
no indulgence deserves to be caused in the matter. It is argued that the
petitioner had committed grave malpractices and even in the first enquiry
the malpractices had been proved and now the petitioner cannot argue that
the malpractices are not made out because the earlier order of penalty was
never challenged by the petitioner in which also his malpractices were
found proved.
7. Heard.
8. In the present case, the petitioner was earlier penalized by order
Annexure P-4 dated 24.02.2020 and then a fresh charge sheet has been
issued to him vide Annexure P-6 dated 7.02.2022 on the same set of
allegations.
9. The respondents have defended their action on the ground that the
earlier order was reviewed and the permission of the authority was
accorded for reviewing the earlier order in pursuance to which the fresh
charge sheet has been issued vide Annexure P-6. This was countered by the
petitioner on the ground that there is no power of review vested in the
service regulations.
10. The services of the petitioner are subjected to State Mandi Board
Service Regulations, 1998 and as per clause 38(three) of the said
regulations, the power of review has been vested in the following terms:-
(तीन) पुन वलोकन का अिधकार :
(1) रा य म ड बोड सेवा के सद य ारा विनयम 30 म विन द कये गये
कसी भी शा त अिधरो पत वाले आदे श के व ऐसे आदे श क ाि क
तार ख से छः माह के अ दर अनुसूची-9 म व णत स म, अपीलीय ािधकार
से अगले उ च अिधकार को पुन वलोकन हे तु आवेदन तुत कया जा
सकेगा।
पुन वलोकनकता अिधकार कसी भी समय या तो व ेरणा से अथवा इस हे तु
उसे आवेदन तुत होने पर, करण से संबिं धत जांच अिभलेख को मंगा
सकेगा ओर ऐसे कसी भी आदे श का जसके व अपील अनु ात है . क तु
कोई अपील नह ं क गई हो. या जसके व कोई अपील अनु ात ना हो
पुन वलोकन कर सकेगा और -
(क) आदे श क पु कर सकेगा, उसे पभे दत कर सकेगा या उसे अपा त कर
सकेगा,
या
(ख) उस आदे श ारा अिधरो पत क गई शा त क पु कर सकेगा उसम
कमी कर सकेगा या उसम वृ कर सकेगा या उसे अपा त कर सकेगा या
जसे कोई शा त अिधरो पत नह ं क गई हो. वह कोई भी शा रत अिधरो पत
कर सकेगा,
या
(ग) मामले को, उस ािधकार क ओर, जसने क वह आदे श दया हो, या
कसी अ य ािधकार क और ऐसे ािधकार को ऐसी और जांच, जैसी क वह
मामले क प र थितय म आव यक समझे, करने के िनदश दे ते हुए भेज
सकेगा,
या
(घ) ऐसे अ य आदे श पा रत कर सकेगा, जसे क वह उिचत समझे पर तु
कसी शा त को अिधरो पत करने वाला, या बढ़ाने वाला कोई भी आदे श
पुन वलोकन करने वाले कसी भी ािधकार ारा तब तक नह ं दया जायेगा
जब तक क बोड सेवा के संबिं धत सद य को ता वत क गई शा त के
व अ यावेदन करने का यु यु अवसर न दे दया गया हो।
(2) पुन वलोकन के िलये कोई भी कायवाह तब तक नह ं क जावेगी जब तक
क
(एक) अपील के िलए अविध काल समा न हो जाए.
(दो) जहां ऐसी अपील तुत कर द गई है . वहां उसका िनपटारा ना हो जाए।
(3) पुन वलोकन के आवेदन प पर उसी र ित म कायवाह क जायेगी, मान
क वह इन िनयम के अधीन अपील हो।
11. The power of review is very much there in the service regulations
and therefore the argument of the petitioner that there is no power of
review, pales into insignificance. Since no appeal was filed against the
earlier penalty order Annexure P-4, therefore the power of review could be
exercised either suo motu or on application of a party. The authority has
exercised power suo motu which is duly authorized under clause 38(three)
of the Service Regulations.
12. There can be said to be a minor misunderstanding of the authority
that in place of proceeding on the basis of the same charge sheet, it issued a
fresh charge sheet under misconception that the earlier charge sheet has
been disposed of and issued the fresh charge sheet containing the same
charges. In the opinion of this Court, once the earlier order had been
recalled by the reviewing authority, its existence had ceased to exist and as
per direction of the reviewing authority, the fresh charge sheet was issued
which cannot be said to be something not authorized by law.
13. Therefore the argument of the petitioner that the charge sheet
Annexure P-6 amounts to second charge sheet on the same set of
allegations, is discarded. Coming to the merits of the case, the petitioner
was saddled with three charges which are summarized as under :-
(a) The first charge related to the petitioner making 209 entries in
fraudulent manner on the web-portal and issuing forged e-receipts and
himself doing verification of the said e-receipts fraudulently generated by
him.
(b) The second charge related to the activity of the petitioner in coming to
the office on the days of holidays and then making unauthorized entries in
the web -portal from the office computers.
(c) The third charge related to the petitioner not performing his duties in a
proper manner in the matter of generating e-entry receipts in the market
committee premises and other entries which resulted in various
irregularities.
14. From a perusal of the earlier penalty order Annexure P-4 it is clear
that in the earlier penalty order also the authority had found that the entries
have been made by the petitioner because the OTP of the entries has been
received on the mobile phone of the petitioner and without involvement of
the petitioner the fraudulent entries were impossible. The authority further
noted that the petitioner has admitted having done the fraudulent entries in
the web-portal. Despite that, the authority in its own wisdom simply
extended the probation period by one year despite giving categorical
finding in Annexure P-4 that the petitioner has made 209 fraudulent entries
on the web portal. If the then authority had decided to condone the grievous
lapse of the petitioner which the said authority could not have done because
the said authority is also in position of trustee of the Board being an officer
thereof and was having duty and obligation to curb such malpractices and
was not under obligation to condone the grievous misconduct of the
employees, therefore, the reviewing authority having taken the matter in
suo motu review could not be said to be illegal looking to the manner in
which the disciplinary authority having come to conclusion in Annexure P-
4 that the petitioner has admitted to having made the fraudulent entries,
despite that he only extended probation by one year. It was a misapplication
of trust reposed by the Board in the Disciplinary Authority and the
Reviewing authority rightly corrected the same.
15. Even before issuing the fresh penalty order after conclusion of the
fresh enquiry, the disciplinary authority has issued a show cause notice
Annexure P-8 thereby mentioning in detail that the fraudulent entries have
been made by the login ID which is seeded to the mobile phone of the
petitioner and the entries were impossible without involvement of the
petitioner because OTPs were being received on mobile phone of the
petitioner and looking to this finding which is consistent in both the
enquiries, in the opinion of this court, the punishment of dismissal awarded
to the petitioner does not appear to be illegal or disproportionate in any
manner. The petitioner had admitted to have made the fraudulent entries as
recorded in the order Annexure P-4 and nothing has been placed on record
to disbelieve the findings arrived at against the petitioner in both the
enquiries that the fraudulent entries on the web-portal could not have been
made without involvement of petitioner because OTP of the said entries
was received on mobile phone of the petitioner. In the opinion of this
Court, no interference is required to be caused in the order of penalty
issued to the petitioner and looking to the conduct exhibited by the
petitioner, which was even before confirmation of probation, retention of
such a person in service would be counter-productive to public interest.
16. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed and the impugned orders
stand confirmed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
nks JUDGE
