Madhya Pradesh High Court
Roop Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 September, 2025
1 W.P.No. 4426/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
WRIT PETITION No. 4426 OF 2021
ROOP SINGH
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Smt. Smarti Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Ekta Vyas- PL for the respondents/State.
RESERVED ON: 19/09/2025
ORDER PASSED ON: 24/09/2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R
Petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging the order dated 31/5/2017 (Annexure P/3), whereby, respondent
no.4 has inflicted punishment of withholding of one increment with
cumulative effect on account of his unauthorized absence for 99 days.
Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 16/1/2018 (Annexure P/2) and
order dated 17/7/2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondents no.3 & 2
respectively, whereby, his appeal and mercy appeal, filed against the
punishment order, have been dismissed.
2. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Head Constable
and was posted at Police Station Banmore, District Morena. He proceeded
for leave from 1/4/2015 to 10/4/2015, however, did not resume his duties on
expiry of leave period. He remained absent for the period from 10/4/2015 to
20/6/2015 for a period of 72 days. Again, he was granted leave from
23/9/2015 to 28/9/2015, however, again, he overstayed the leave period and
resumed his duty only on 20/10/2015. Thus, he remained absent for 27 days
from duty.
3. The department took a decision to conduct a departmental enquiry
for unauthorized absence of petitioner for 99 days. Accordingly, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Morena was appointed as Enquiry
Officer while Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Line, Morena was appointed
as Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the departmental
enquiry, wherein, 4 prosecution witnesses were examined in addition to 12
documents exhibited in support of charges. The petitioner cross-examined
each of the prosecution witnesses. The Enquiry Officer, thereafter,
submitted his report on 31/3/2017, wherein, he found the charge proved
against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority, issued a show cause notice
to the petitioner on 11/4/2017 (Annexure P/5) forwarding thereunder copy
of enquiry report and asking him to give his explanation to the findings
recorded by the enquiry officer. The petitioner failed to submit his
explanation. Accordingly, respondent no.4 passed the impugned order dated
31/5/2017 (Annexure P/3), thereby, imposing punishment of withholding of
one increment with cumulative effect on the petitioner. The period of
absence from 10/4/2015 to 20/6/2015 (72 days) and from 23/9/2015 to
20/10/2015 (27 days) was regularized as per Rule 24 of the M.P. Civil
Services (Leave) Rules.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved challenged the punishment order
before respondent no.3 by filing an appeal, which was dismissed vide order
dated 16/1/2018. Thereafter, the mercy appeal filed by petitioner was also
dismissed by respondent no.2 vide order dated 17/7/2018. Challenging these
orders, petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned
orders primarily on the ground that the presenting officer was not appointed,
and instead, the enquiry officer himself not only examined the prosecution
witnesses but also cross-examined the petitioner and has thus, acted as a
prosecutor as well as a judge. She further submitted that the role of enquiry
officer has to be impartial and the fact that he has acted on behalf of
prosecution seriously doubts his impartiality. In support of her submissions,
she has relied upon the Apex Court decision in the case of Union of India
& Ors. Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma, reported in (2018)7 SCC 670 as also the
orders passed by this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Daharia vs.
Union of India & Ors., passed in W.P. No.1399/2000 as well as Lal Singh
Jatav vs. State of M.P. & Ors., passed in W.P. No.5062/2010.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the
petitioner remained absent from duty on account of illness of his father and
of his own illness. The petitioner duly submitted sickness as well as fitness
certificates for both the occasions, however, the respondent no.2 to 4 have
completely escaped consideration of these certificates while passing the
impugned orders. She submitted that the documents with regard to illness
filed by petitioner during course of enquiry were also not considered. She
also pointed out that the petitioner has an unblemished service record
consisting of 28 prizes for honest and dedicated service. It is her submission
that because of his good performance, petitioner was recently promoted as
Head Constable on 1/4/2025. Thus, the respondents failed to take note of the
past service of the petitioner. The learned counsel also submitted that the
respondent/authorities erred in taking into account the minor punishment of
censure imposed upon the petitioner without realizing the fact that the
petitioner has already been punished for the aforesaid absence. She, thus,
submitted that the consideration of past service of the petitioner without
putting him to notice, is illegal.
7. On the other hand, counsel for the State supported the impugned
orders and submitted that the petitioner remained absent for 99 days without
sanctioning of leave by the competent authority. She submitted that the
petitioner is a member of disciplined force and remaining absent
unauthorisedly for 99 days amounts to gross indiscipline on his part and
therefore, imposition of minor punishment on the petitioner, in fact, shows
the lenient view adopted by the authorities. The learned counsel further
submitted that the punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner after
appreciation of evidence collected during course of enquiry and this Court
in exercise of powers of judicial review would not sit as appellate authority
over the view taken by the departmental authorities. She also raised an
objection with regard to delay and laches on the part of petitioner inasmuch
as present litigation has been filed after lapse of about 3 years. She
therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.
8. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
9. The objection raised by respondents' counsel regarding delay of
about three years in filing the present writ petition needs to be considered
first. It is seen that the order on his mercy appeal was passed by respondent
no.2 on 17.07.2018 and, the present writ petition was filed on 19.02.2021.
The petitioner has stated in para 4 of writ petition, that initially he could not
understand the effect of punishment imposed on him. When the increment
was not added to his salary and he was informed that the increment is
stopped for all times to come, he could realize the permanent loss caused to
him. He then took steps for filing of present writ petition. However,
countrywide lockdown was imposed due to CORONA pandemic and,
therefore, there occurred delay in filing the petition.
10. The explanation given by petitioner for delay in filing the writ
petition may not perfectly justify the delay. However, it is a fact that a
permanent financial loss is caused to the petitioner because of impugned
punishment. Further, from March' 2020, a countrywide lockdown was
imposed due to CORONA pandemic. Therefore, this Court does not find it
proper to dismiss this petition on the ground of delay and laches. The
objection raised by respondents' counsel is, therefore, rejected.
11. The petitioner has also raised an objection that the presenting
officer was not appointed in the enquiry and the enquiry officer himself
assumed the role of presenting officer. The submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner that the presenting officer was not appointed, is found to
be contrary to the record inasmuch as one Shri Shivraj Singh Chauhan,
Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Line, Morena was appointed as presenting
officer. The question thus remains as to whether the questions asked by
enquiry officer to the petitioner would vitiate the enquiry proceedings or
not?
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance
upon the Apex Court decision in the case of Ram Lakhan Sharma (supra).
In that case, the Apex Court has held that there is no requirement of
appointment presenting officer in every case. Whether, non-appointment of
presenting officer vitiates the enquiry, would depend upon the facts of each
case. Para 34 of the aforesaid decision being relevant, is reproduced
hereunder for ready reference:-
"34. We fully endorse the principles as enumerated above,
however, the principles have to be carefully applied in fact
situation of a particular case. There is no requirement of
appointment of Presenting Officer in each and every case,
whether statutory rules enable the authorities to make an
appointment or are silent. When the statutory rules are silent
with regard to the applicability of any facet of principles of
natural justice the applicability of principles of natural
justice which are not specifically excluded in the statutory
scheme are not prohibited. When there is no express
exclusion of particular principle of natural justice, the said
principle shall be applicable in a given case to advance the
cause of justice. In this context, reference is made of a case of
this Court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra
[Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC
84 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1783] . In the above case, this Court
had occasion to consider the provisions of the Punjab
National Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal)
Regulations, 1977. Regulation 7 provides for action on the
enquiry report. Regulation 7 as extracted in para 10 of the
judgment is as follows: (SCC p. 90)
"10. ... '7. Action on the enquiry report.--(1) The
disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the enquiring
authority, may, for reasons to be recorded by it in
writing, remit the case to the enquiring authority for
fresh or further enquiry and report and the enquiring
authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further
enquiry according to the provisions of Regulation 6 as
far as may be.
(2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with
the findings of the enquiring authority on any article of
charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and
record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence
on record is sufficient for the purpose.
(3) If the disciplinary authority, having regard to its
findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the
opinion that any of the penalties specified in
Regulation 4 should be imposed on the officer
employee, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained
in Regulation 8, make an order imposing such penalty.
(4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its
findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the
opinion that no penalty is called for, it may pass an
order exonerating the officer employee concerned."
13. The same legal position is reiterated by this Court in the cases of
Santosh Kumar Daharia (supra ) and Lal Singh Jatav (supra).
14. Considering the aforesaid legal position, if the facts of the present
case are seen, it is found that firstly the charge levelled against the petitioner
and his defence, both are based upon the documentary evidence, therefore,
even if, the enquiry officer has put certain questions to the petitioner, same
may not vitiate the enquiry procedure. Further, if the questions put-forth by
the enquiry officer to the petitioner are seen, they are general in nature and
do not amount to rigorous cross-examination of the petitioner by enquiry
officer. It is worth to mention here that the questionnaire in relation to
petitioner has been captioned as dwV ijh{k.k (cross-examination), however,
the questions putforth by the enquiry officer to the petitioner may not
amount to cross-examination in strict sense. Therefore, the objection raised
by petitioner's counsel regarding non-appointment of present officer is
hereby rejected.
15. Coming on to merits of the case, the absence of petitioner for a
period of 99 days in aforesaid two spells is not in dispute. Petitioner in his
defense submitted the sickness/fitness certificates for both occasions in
addition to the documents regarding illegal of his father as well as his own
illness. As many as four prosecution witnesses were examined during the
course of enquiry. Their deposition has been reproduced in the enquiry
report. Apart from Head Constable Chandan Singh Jadon (PW/1), no
witness has stated anything about the material submitted by the petitioner in
support of his absence. Shri Jadon in his submission has duly confirmed that
the petitioner has submitted the medical prescriptions and the medical
certificate for his absence from 8/4/2015 to 17/6/2015. He further stated that
the petitioner had also submitted the medical certificate for his subsequent
absence. Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 31/3/2017. A perusal of the
report goes to show that after reproducing the deposition of four prosecution
witnesses as well as the statement of the petitioner, the enquiry officer has
narrated the defense of the petitioner and thereafter jumped to the
conclusion that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent for 99 days,
which shows his negligence and indiscipline towards service. Two
paragraphs in which, he has given his findings, being relevant, are
reproduced hereunder:-
"वविभभागगीय जभाजाँच ममे उपलबब्ध सभाकय कभा वविशलमेषण
अपचचाररी प 0 आ 0 43 रूप सससिंह तततचालरीन पपसलस लचाईन मपररैनचा हचाल
थचानचा बचाममौर तके वविरूदद्ध लगचायचा गयचा आररोप ददिनचासिंत 10.04.2015 सके
20.06.2015 तत 72 ददिविस तथचा ददिनचासिंत 23.09.2015 सके 20.10.2015 तत
27 ददिविस तपल 99 ददिविस अनचाधद्धतकत रूप सके अनपपससथत हरोतर सकेविचा
शतर्तों तचा उललसिंघन तर सविकेचचचाचचाररतचा एविसिं अनश
प चासन हरीनतचा पदिसशर्शित
तरनचा। जजॉच तके दिमौरचान तथन असभियरोजन सचाकक्षी क्रमचासिंत -01 प 0 आर 0
मरोहररर्शिर 385 चनदिन सससिंह जचादिमौन पसप लस लचाईन मरप रैनचा, असभियरोजन सचाकक्षी
क्रमचासिंत 02 उ 0 नन0 (अ) आर 0 एस 0 रचाजमौररयचा पसप लस अद्धक्षीकत तचायचार्शिलय
मरप रैनचा, असभियरोजन सचाकक्षी क्रमचासिंत -03 स 0 उ 0 नन0(अ) वविनय ठचातपर पसप लस
अद्धक्षीकत तचायचार्शिलय मरप रैनचा, असभियरोजन सचाकक्षी क्रमचासिंत -04 भिचारत सससिंह
यचादिवि रककत ननररीकत पसप लस लचाईन मरप रैनचा तके तथन सलयके गयके एविसिं
अपचचाररी प 0 आर 0 तरो तकट पररीकण तके दिमौरचान बचचावि तचा यपसकतयपकत
अविसर पदिचान कतयचा गयचा। प 0 आर 0 दविचारचा ससिंतरोषजनत जविचाब नहरी
ददियचा गयचा एविसिं बचचावि दिसतचाविकेजरो मके भिक्षी कतसक्षी पतचार तचा तरोई ठरोस
दिसतचाविकेज पकेश न तरतके हपऐ मचात्र औपचचाररत मकेडक्षीतल सटर्टीकफितकेट पसतपत
कतयके गयके हरै जरो धचकततसचालय सजलचा शहडरोल तके हरै असभियरोजन सचाकक्षी
गणणों तके तथनरो मके आई सचाकय एविसिं असभियरोजन दिसतचाविकेज 01 लगचायत
12 तत तके आद्धचार पर अपचचाररी प 0 आर 0 43 रूप सससिंह तके वविरूदद्ध
लगचायचा गयचा आररोप पकणर्शित: पमचाणणत पचातचा हकह।
जभाजांच ननिषकषर:
वविभिचागक्षीय जचासिंच तके दिमौरचान सलयके गए असभियरोजन सचाककयणों तके तथन एविसिं
ससिंलगन दिसतचाविकेजक्षी सचाकय सके सपषट हरै कत अपचचाररी प 0 आर 0 43 रूप सससिंह
गरोणड तके वविरूदद्ध आररोवपत आररोप- ''ददिनचासिंत 10.04.2015 सके 20.06.2015
तत 72 ददिविस तथचा ददिनचासिंत 23.09.2015 सके 20.10.2015 तत 27 ददिविस
तपल 99 ददिविस अनचाधद्धतकत रूप सके अनपपससथत हरोतर सकेविचा शतर्तों तचा
उललसिंघन तर सविकेचचचाचचाररतचा पदिसशर्शित तरनचा''। तरो पकणर्शित: पचातचा हकह।
उपररोकत वविभिचागक्षीय जचासिंच मम जचासिंच तके दिमौरचान अपचचाररी प 0 आर 0 तरो
बचचावि तचा पण
क र्शि अविसर पदिचान कतयचा गयचा। उकत वविभिचागक्षीय जचासिंच पचातकनतत
नयचाय तके ससदद्धचासिंत तके आद्धचार पर तकी गई हरै।
अत: वविभिचागक्षीय जचासिंच पनतविकेदिन विरैद्धचाननत तचायर्शिविचाहरी हकेतप तकपयचा
पकेवषत हरै।"
16. Bare perusal of findings recorded by the enquiry officer reveals
that the documents, including the medical certificates, submitted by the
petitioner, have not been referred to in the findings recorded by the enquiry
officer. The order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 31/5/2017 is
also placed on record as Annexure P/3. Disciplinary authority also after
referring to the proceedings of the enquiry, has referred to the petitioner's
previous absence for which he was inflicted punishment of censure, directly
passed the impugned order of stoppage of one increment with cumulative
effect. The disciplinary authority also failed to take into account the specific
defence taken by the petitioner with regard to illness of his father as also his
own illness. The documents in support of his defence are also not
considered by the disciplinary authority.
17. The appellate authorities while considering the appeal as also the
mercy appeal, have also not considered this important aspect of the matter.
18. Remaining absent from duty may not in itself be a misconduct
unless such absence is intentional and willful. In other words, if the
delinquent furnishes sufficient explanation for his absence, same may not
construe a misconduct entailing imposition of punishment. Thus, it was
mandatory for the enquiry officer as also by the disciplinary/appellate
authority to have considered the specific defence taken by the petitioner
alongwith the documents submitted by him. However, the authorities have
miserably failed to consider this important aspect and have imposed the
impugned punishment presuming the absence of petitioner itself as a
misconduct.
19. Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the
impugned orders passed by respondent no.2 to 4 suffer from the defect of
non-application of mind for want of consideration of the defence of the
petitioner as also the documents submitted by him in support thereof.
20. Consequently, orders dated 17/7/2018 (Annexure P/1), 16/1/2018
(Annexure P/2) & 31/5/2017 (Annexure P/3) are hereby set aside. The
matter is remitted to respondent no.4 to reconsider the entire matter keeping
in view the observations made hereinbefore and pass fresh orders in relation
thereof. It is further clarified that if the fresh order is passed in favour of
petitioner, the increment which was stopped pursuant to the order dated
31/5/2017 shall be restored in favour of petitioner.
21. With the aforesaid, petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JPS/-
