Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhikam Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24787
1 WP-22758-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 6 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 22758 of 2023
BHIKAM SINGH TOMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K.K. Sharma- learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta- learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging letter dated
17/07/2023 (Annexure- P/1), whereby the Enquiry Officer has called him for
his consent regarding his appointment as enquiry officer. He has also prayed
for setting-aside of the pending departmental enquiry.
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner
was working as Assistant Sub- Inspector and has retired from service w.e.f.
31/03/2021. In the year 2017, while he was posted at Crime Branch, Gwalior,
an FIR bearing Crime No.04/2017 was registered against him in relation to
the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC.
Investigation was conducted by four officers including the petitioner. After
investigation, the trial was conducted which ultimately concluded with
passing of judgment dated 30/09/2021 by Second Additional Session Judge,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24787
2 WP-22758-2023
Gwalior in S.T. No.403/2017. In paragraph 64 & 65 of the judgment, learned
Trial Court made certain observations with regard to the irregularities in the
matter of investigation against the Investigating Officers.
3. Based upon the observations made by the learned Trial Court, a
charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner as also three others on 02/09/2022.
One Sanjay Baraiya, Sub-Inspector filed an application under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. before this Court challenging the observations made by the learned
Trial Court in paragraph 64 & 65 of its judgment. This Court initially passed
an interim order on 28/09/2022 and subsequently, vide order dated
02/03/2023 passed in MCRC No.45541/2022 set-aside the observations
made by the Trial Court so far as it relates to the petitioner- Sanjay Baraiya.
4. The petitioner alongwith two others filed an application before
respondent no.2 requesting for closure of enquiry in view of the order passed
by this Court in MCRC No.45541/2022. The respondent no.2 passed an
order on 23/03/2023 (Annexure-P/3) thereby closing the departmental
enquiry against the petitioner as also two others based upon the order passed
by this Court in the aforesaid MCRC. As per the return filed by the
respondents, the matter came to the notice of Inspector General of Police,
Gwalior Zone, Gwalior. He summoned the records of departmental enquiry.
It was found that order passed by this Court was confined to Mr. Sanjay
Baraiya and it has been misinterpreted by respondent no.2 while closing the
departmental enquiry against other incumbents including the petitioner. He,
therefore, directed for proceeding further with the departmental enquiry vide
memo dated 28/06/2023. Accordingly, respondent no.2 passed the order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24787
3 WP-22758-2023
dated 05/07/2023 (Annexure- R/1) thereby re-opening the enquiry against
the petitioner and other two by appointing Additional Superintendent of
Police, City (West), Gwalior as enquiry officer and City Superintendent of
Police, Morar, District- Gwalior as presenting officer. Pursuant to the
aforesaid order passed by respondent no.2, the Additional Superintendent of
Police, who has been appointed as Enquiry Officer, has issued the impugned
communication dated 17/07/2023 asking the petitioner and two others to give
their consent for his appointment as enquiry officer. Challenging this
communication, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present
writ petition.
5. This Court on 29/09/2023 passed an interim order thereby staying
the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 17/07/2023.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the
enquiry was closed by respondent no.2 vide order dated 23/03/2023, the
same could not have been re-opened without issuing notice to the petitioner.
He submitted that the petitioner has already retired from service on
31/03/2021 and, therefore, issuance of charge sheet on 02/09/2023 without
sanction of Governor is in violation of Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and the same is, therefore, unsustainable in
law.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since
this Court in MCRC No.45541/2022 has set-aside the observations made by
the Trial Court in para 64 & 65 of its judgment, which was the basis for
issuance of charge-sheet, no action can be taken against the petitioner also.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24787
4 WP-22758-2023
He, thus, submitted that departmental enquiry being conducted against the
petitioner pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 02/09/2022 is impermissible in
law and is liable to be quashed.
8. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State supported the impugned action of the respondents and
submitted that the order passed by this Court in MCRC was confined to co-
delinquent- Mr. Sanjay Baraiya and could not have been applied for the
petitioner and other delinquents. It is his submission that respondent no.2
misinterpreted the order passed by this Court and wrongly closed the
departmental enquiry against all the delinquents. The learned counsel further
submitted that Inspector General of Police was empowered to direct re-
opening of the departmental enquiry. Regarding violation of Rule 9 of the
M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, learned counsel submitted that no
such ground has been raised by the petitioner in the writ petition and,
therefore, there is no response in this regard in the return filed of the
respondents. He also submitted that serious allegations have been made
against the petitioner which needs to be enquired into in the departmental
enquiry. Therefore, at this stage, no interference is warranted by this Court.
He placed reliance upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Union of
India & another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayan reported in (2006)12 SCC 28 to
say that charge-sheet cannot be quashed unless it is shown to have been
issued by an incompetent authority or with any malafide intention. He,
therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24787
5 WP-22758-2023
10. The main ground of challenge to the impugned communication
dated 17/07/2023 is that once respondent no.2 has already closed the enquiry,
the same cannot be re-opened by appointing the enquiry officer that too
without issuing any notice to the petitioner. In this regard, it is seen that
respondent no.2 closed the enquiry vide order dated 23/03/2023 mainly based
upon the order dated 02/03/2023 passed by this Court in MCRC
No.45541/2022. However, if the order passed by this Court is seen, it is
evident that the observations made by the Trial Court in S.T. No.403/2017
were set-aside only in relation to the petitioner therein. Therefore, respondent
no.2 completely mis-read the order passed by this Court while closing the
departmental enquiry against other incumbents also. The Inspector General
of Police, therefore, was justified in re-opening the enquiry. Therefore, the
impugned communication issued by the enquiry officer cannot be said to be
illegal or otherwise unsustainable in law.
11. The law with regard to quashment of chargesheet is well settled by
the Apex Court in the case of Kunisetty Satyanarayan (supra). The Apex
Court has held in para 13 to 15 as under:-
"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this
Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet
or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar
State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [(1996) 1
SCC 327 : JT (1995) 8 SC 331] , Special
Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467]
, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore [(2001) 10
SCC 639] , State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987)
2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] ,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24787
6 WP-22758-2023
etc.
14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not
be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or
charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be
held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-
cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action,
because it does not amount to an adverse order which
affects the rights of any party unless the same has been
issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is
quite possible that after considering the reply to the
show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the
authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or
hold that the charges are not established. It is well
settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any
party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-
sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only
when a final order imposing some punishment or
otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the
said party can be said to have any grievance.
15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and
hence such discretion under Article 226 should not
ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice
or charge-sheet."
12. In the present case, no objection with regard to jurisdiction of
authority to issue charge-sheet has been raised. Even though learned counsel
for the petitioner challenged the charge-sheet on the ground of violation of
Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, however, no such
ground is taken in the writ petition. Further, even the copy of the charge-
sheet dated 02/09/2022 has not been placed on record. Therefore, it is not
possible to ascertain as to whether the approval of the Governor as required
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24787
7 WP-22758-2023
under Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, was taken or
not. In absence of necessary pleading and the copy of the charge-sheet, the
objection raised by the petitioner regarding violation of Rule 9 of the M.P.
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 cannot be entertained in the present
writ petition.
13. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed off
permitting respondent no.2 to proceed with the enquiry after ensuring that
the provisions of Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, so
far as enquiry relates to the petitioner, are complied with before proceeding
further with the departmental enquiry.
14. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is allowed and
disposed off.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
rahul
