Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagirath Prasad Goyal vs Mp Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran. Co. ... on 28 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27066
1 WP-2437-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 28th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2437 of 2016
BHAGIRATH PRASAD GOYAL
Versus
MP MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN. CO. THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Utkarsh Bajpai - Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.
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."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time,
petitioner was posted on the post of Assistant Manager. Respondents had
issued show cause notice to the petitioner and petitioner has submitted a
reply to the said notice. Thereafter, respondents had initiated the enquiry
against the petitioner by issuing the charge-sheet. Thereafter, the enquiry
proceedings stood concluded, and a copy of the enquiry report was furnished
to the petitioner, whereupon the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the
enquiry report by reply dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure P/10 and P/12). It is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27066
2 WP-2437-2016
further submitted that while issuing the punishment order by Disciplinary
Authority, a detailed reply submitted by the petitioner has not been
considered by the Disciplinary Authority and non-speaking and unreasoned
order has been issued by the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, petitioner
has preferred a detailed appeal (Annexure P/13) before Appellate Authority
and Appellate Authority also has not considered the facts and grounds
mentioned in the appeal and issued non-speaking and unreasoned appeal
rejection order dated 16.03.2016/11.01.2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority, who are acting as a
quasi-judicial authorities, 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 after
recording of its full satisfaction the Disciplinary Authority as well as
Appellate Authority had arrived to a conclusion and cannot be faulted with,
but candidly admitted that while concurring with the findings recorded by the
Enquiry Officer, no reasoning had been assigned by Disciplinary Authority
as well as by Appellate Authority.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Important part of the punishment order dated 05.11.2015 (Annexure
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27066
3 WP-2437-2016
P/1) issued by the Disciplinary Authority reads as under:-
"और यह क ी भागीरथ साद गोयल सहायक ब धक के ारा
उ कारण बताओ सूचना प को उ र के प कमाक िनरकं दनाक
26.10.2015, उप महा बंधक (संचा-संधा) स भाग मुरैना तीय के
मा यम से इस कायालय को े षत कया गया।
और यह क ी भागीरथ साद गोयल सहायक ब धक का उ र
दनाक 26.10.2015 का करण म उपल ध सम त त य द तावेजो
तथा जाँच िन कष एवं प र थितय के आधार पर वचार करने पर
संतोषजनक नह ं पाया गया। करण म अधोह ता रकता इस िन कष
पर पहुच
ं ा है क याय हत म ी भागीरथ साद गोवल सहायक ब धक
क दो वा षक वेतन व याँ संचयी भाव से रोके जाने एवं क पनी को
हई ित का एक भाग पय 28,386 /- क वसूली ी भागीरथ साद
गोयल सहायक ब धक के वेतन से कया जाना उिचत होगा।
अतःएवं ी भागीरथ साद गोयल सहायक ब धक जो क
वतमान म जीगनी वतरण के (संचा-संधा). स भाग मुरैना तीय के
अधीन पद थ है क आगामी दो वा षत वेतन वृ य संचयी भाव से
रोका जाकर - क पनी को हुई वेतन हािन रािश का एक भाग पये
28386/- ( पये अ ठाईस हजार तीन सौ िछयासी मा ) क वसूली ी
भागीरथ साद गोयल सहायक ब धक के वेतन से तीन क तो म
िन न कार कया जाना आदे िशत कया जाता है ।
1. पये 10,000 × 2 = . 20,000/-
2. पये 8,386 × 1 = . 8,386/-"
7. Important part of the appeal rejection order dated 16.03.2016
(Annexure P/2) passed by Appellate Authority reads as under:-
"और जैसा क ी भागीरथ साद गोयल, सहायक बंधक क
अपील दनांक 09-12-15 पर अधोह ता रकता ारा सहानुभूितपूवक
वचार कर वभागीय जांच के सम त सा य एवं द तावेज का गहन
पर ण कया गया एवं पाया गया क वभागीय जांच म या का पूण
पालन कया गया है । तथा अपील म अिधकांश उ ले खत त य को
वभागीय जांच के दौरान तुत कया जा चुका है . जनके आधार पर
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27066
4 WP-2437-2016
महा बंधक (संचा-संधा) वृ मुरैना ारा द डादे श मांक
म मु/01बी/15/7079-80 दनांक 05-11-2015 जार कया गया है ।
अपील म कोई ऐसा नवीन भावी त य नह ं है जसके आधार पर
महा बंधक (संचा-संधा) वृ मुरैना ारा जार द डादे श मांक म मु/01
बी/15/7079-80 दनांक 05-11-2015 म प रवतन कया जावे। अतः
अपील िनर त कया जाना उिचत व यायसंगत होगा।
अतः उप रव णत कारण से एतद ारा ी भागीरथ साद गोयल,
सहायक बंधक के व महा बंधक (संचा-संघा) वृ मुरैना के
द डादे श मांक म मु/01 बी/15/7079-80 दनांक 05-11-2015 को
यथावत रखते हुये ी गोयल, सहायक बंधक क अपील दनांक
09.12.2015 को िनर त कया जाता है ।"
8. From perusal of the impugned orders, it is clear that the Disciplinary
Authority as well as Appellate Authority, while passing an order imposing
punishment and rejecting appeal 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 grounds in support
of its conclusion. On perusal of the impugned orders, it does not appear to be
a speaking one.
9. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27066
5 WP-2437-2016
considered before passing the prejudicial order.
10. 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.
11. 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.
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".
12. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27066
6 WP-2437-2016
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.
(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".
13. In view of the above discussion and the circumstances of the case,
I am left with no choice but to set aside the impugned orders dated
05.11.2015 (Annexure P/1) issued by Disciplinary Authority and 16.03.2016
(Annexure P/2) passed by the Appellate Authority and relegate the matter
back to the Disciplinary Authority to hear the case afresh after giving proper
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27066
7 WP-2437-2016
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order with
reasons in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date
of receiving certified copy of this order.
14. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the matter.
16. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition stands disposed
of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Monika
