[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balveer Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 7 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11411
1 WP-3019-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3019 of 2017
BALVEER SINGH TOMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narottam Sharma, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Devendra Choubey, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.
Shri Shyam Prakash Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed
seeking for following reliefs :-
"(i) That, the order dt. 07-03-2017 (Annexure P/1) may kindly be quashed.
(ii) That, it may be held that Collector has no authority under the law to
inflict major penalty against the petitioner.
(iii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was an employee
of respondent No.1 and was member of State Mandi Board Service. Petitioner
stood retired on 31.12.2010. At the relevant point of time, petitioner was posted as
Secretary at respondent No.3 Mandi at Sheopur for the period of 02.03.2009 till
30.06.2010. When petitioner assumed the charge various construction and
developmental work amounting to Rs.4.32 Crores that had been sanctioned before
his posting i.e. before 02.03.2009 were going on and could not be abruptly stopped
because that would have given right to contractors to demand compensation and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11411
2 WP-3019-2017
damages. That to meet day to day expenses salary of staff etc. and to meet the
other expenses like ongoing construction works, entire portion of State
government share i.e. Road Development Fund could not be remitted by the Mandi
while the petitioner was posted at that place. There was shortfall of Rs.62,46,372
in the financial year 2009-10 in remitting the State Government's share (i.e. Road
Development Fund) of the market fees. Surprisingly, on 31.12.2010 i.e. on the
date of retirement of petitioner, a charge-sheet came to be issued against petitioner
regarding not sending the State Government's share to the Board and in spending
Rs.62,46,372/- out of it, in construction works. Petitioner submitted reply and
denied charges and thereafter, enquiry was conducted and enquiry officer has
submitted his enquiry report and it was found by enquiry officer that charges are
not found proved. Still, Board issued a notice expressing disagreement that enquiry
report and asked the petitioner to represent against proposed penalty of
withholding 10% pension for 5 years. Thereafter, respondents has issued show
cause notice and petitioner submitted detailed reply and thereafter disciplinary
authority has not considered reply submitted by petitioner. It is further submitted
that various facts has been mentioned by petitioner in his reply dated 02.04.2012
and facts have already quoted by disciplinary authority in Annexure P-1 and
without considering the facts and grounds mentioned in reply by non-speaking and
unreasoned order 5% pension of petitioner has been withheld for two years.
Thereafter, petitioner has preferred an appeal before Appellate Authority and
Appellate Authority has also decided appeal by non-speaking and unreasoned
order. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that even allegations
mentioned in the charge-sheet as well as punishment order are that petitioner has
made payment from another head. There is no service misconduct as act of
petitioner comes under carelessness and submitted that there is no mens-rea of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11411
3 WP-3019-2017
petitioner and negligency or carelessness does not come under the definition of
misconduct.
3 . Per contra , learned counsel for respondents submitted that proper
procedure has been followed by Disciplinary Authority and after giving proper
opportunity of being heard the punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner
and appellate authority has also considered facts ad grounds in appeal and rightly
rejected the appeal.
4. Heard both the counsels and perused the record.
5. Important part of the punishment order dated 01.11.2014(Annexure P-1)
is quoted herein below :-
" ी बलवीर िसंह तोमर (से.िन) त का. सिचव, कृ ष उपज म ड सिमित,
योपुर ारा तुत उ र एवं करण से संबंिधत न ती का अवलोकन करने पर
पाया गया क कृ ष उपज म ड सिमित, योपुर को ा होने वाली आय म से
सड़क िनिध का भाग िन त रहता है । सड़क िनिध का िन त भाग
समयाविध म भेजा जाना आव यक होता है पर तु सड़क िनिध क रािश म ड
बोड मु यालय को भेजते हुए नाबाड संबंधी िनमाण काय म यय को गई ओर
उ रािश का बाद म िनदान/प रमाजन कराया गया। इस कार कसी मद क
रािश को कसी मद म यय कया जाना िनयम वपर त है एवं इसके िलए ी
तोमर को करण म िनद ष नह माना जा सकता।
अतः ी बलवीर िसंह तोमर (से.िन.) म ड सिचव को कृ ष उपज म ड
सिमित, योपुर म पद थी के दौरा कये गये उ कदाचरण का दोषी मानते हुए
म. . रा य मंड बोड सेवा विनयम, 1998 के विनयम 30 (सात) के अ तगत
5 ितशत पशन 2 वष के िलए रोकने क शा त अिधरो पत क जाकर
वभागीय जांच करण एतद ारा समा कया जाता है । "
6. From perusal of the punishment order issued by the Disciplinary
Authority dated 01.11.2014, it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority while
passing an order imposing punishment upon the petitioner, is exercising quasi
judicial power and even the quasi judicial order must be a speaking order. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11411
4 WP-3019-2017
Disciplinary Authority must apply its mind to the entire facts and ground
mentioned in the reply and circumstances and record valid and justifiable reason
and all grounds in support of its conclusion.
7. The important part of appeal rejection order dated 31.08.2015 is
reproduced hereinunder :-
" करण म बोड से उप थत ी सजय कौल, संयु सचालक ारा तुत
करण से संबंिधत अिभलेख के अवलोकन के उपरांत म इस िन कष पर
पहुच
ँ ा हू ँ क मु यालय के िनदश के वप रत अपीलाथ ारा कसान सड़क
िनिध का िन त भाग समयाविध म बोड कायालय को न भेजकर अपने
दािय व एवं कत य का िनवहन ज मेदार से नह ं कया गया। अपीलाथ का
यह कृ य जनके कदाचरण को दिशत करता है । अतः करण म
ितअपीलाथ / बंध संचालक, म य दे श रा य कृ ष वपणन बोड ारा पा रत
आदे श को यथावत रखते हुए अपीलाथ / ी बलवीर िसंह तोमर, त कालीन
सिचव, कृ ष उपज मंड सिमित, योपुर जला योपुर ारा तुत अपील
एतद ारा िनर त क जाती है ।"
8. From perusal of the appeal rejection order issued by the Appellate
Authority dated 31.08.2015, it is clear that the Appellate Authority while passing
an appeal rejection order is exercising quasi judicial power and even the quasi
judicial order must be a speaking order. The Appellate Authority must apply its
mind to the entire facts and ground mentioned in the reply and circumstances and
record valid and justifiable reason and all grounds in support of its conclusion.
9. On perusal of the appeal rejection order, it does not appear to be a
speaking one
10. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11411
5 WP-3019-2017
how his case or defence was considered before passing the prejudicial order.
11. 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.
12. 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"
13. 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 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court
summarized its discussion. The relevant subparagraphs of the said summary are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11411
6 WP-3019-2017
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".
14. As disciplinary authority has issued a non-speaking and unreasoned
order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Oryx Fisheries Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of
India & Ors; (2010) 13 SCC 427 has held as under:-
"41. In M/s Kranti Associates (supra), this Court after considering
various judgments formulated certain principles in para 51 of the
judgment which are set out below
a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in
administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its
conclusions.
c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider
principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear
to be done as well.
d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible
arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasijudicial or even administrative
power.
e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision
maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous
considerations.
f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a
decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by
judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.
h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law
and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11411
7 WP-3019-2017
on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood 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.
j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability
and transparency.
k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about
his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether
the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to
principles of incrementalism.
l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A
pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a
valid decision making process.
m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint
on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only
makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also
makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence
of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).
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
Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and
Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court
referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which
requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial
decisions". o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role
in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of
law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and
is virtually a part of "Due Process".
42. In the instant case the appellate order contains reasons. However,
absence of reasons in the original order cannot be compensated by
disclosure of reason in the appellate order.
43. In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna and
others,(1986) 4 SCC 537, it has been held:
"......after the blow suffered by the initial decision, it is
difficult to contemplate complete restitution through an
appellate decision. Such a case is unlike an action for money
or recovery of property, where the execution of the trial decree
may be stayed pending appeal, or a successful appeal may
result in refund of the money or restitution of the property,
with appropriate compensation by way of interest or mesne
profits for the period of deprivation. And, therefore, it seems
to us, there is manifest need to ensure that there is no breach
of fundamental procedure in the original proceeding, and to
avoid treating an appeal as an overall substitute for the
original proceeding."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11411
8 WP-3019-2017
44. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court quashes the show
cause notice as also the order dated 19.03.2008 passed by the
third respondent. In view of that, the appellate order has no
legs to stand and accordingly is quashed."
15. Even the allegations made against the petitioner that petitioner has not
made payment from proper head does not amount to misconduct as per judgment
of S. D. Bind Vs. Union of India & Others. For ready reference the relevant part of
that judgment is being reproduced hereinunder :-
"15 That apart, another aspect of the matter warrants consideration. The
irregularities which is found against the petitioner is only non following
of certain procedure in the matter of awarding contract. The question is
as to whether such an irregularity in the matter of following the
procedure can be termed as a misconduct. The Supreme Court has
considered the aforesaid aspect in the case of Union of India v. J.
Ahmed (AIR 1979 SC 1022) which has been followed again by the
Supreme Court in the case of Inspector Prem Chand v. Govt. of National
Capital Territory of Delhi and others [(2007) 4 SCC 1022]; wherein it
has been held by the Supreme Court that merely lack of efficiency,
failure to attain the highest standard of administrative ability or
negligent or careless way of dealing with a matter on one isolated
may not constituted a misconduct for which punishment can be
imposed.
16. In the present case apart from the fact that the Division Bench has
made the observations as reproduced herein above and interfered with
the imposition of cost, it found that there was certain discrepancy in the
guidelines laid down and, therefore, in paragraph 9 fresh guidelines for
future action was issued. Once this is the factual scenario then merely
because the petitioner failed to follow the guidelines for once, it cannot
be said that the petitioner has committed misconduct in the matter.
At best action of the petitioner may fall in the category of careless or
negligence in the matter of dealing with the case once an isolated
occasion and if the principles laid down by the Supreme Court as
indicated in the case of J. Ahmed (supra) is applied, we are of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11411
9 WP-3019-2017
considered view that allegations levelled even do not amount
to misconduct for which action can be taken.
17. As the Tribunal has ignored all these aspects, it is a fit case where
interference should be made and entire action of the department is
quashed."
16. May be the act of petitioner comes under definition of negligency, but it
cannot be termed as misconduct as there is no mens-rea of petitioner even no loss
has been occurred to respondent/State/Mandi
17. In view of the above discussions and the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am left with no choice but to set aside impugned punishment order dated
01.11.2014 and appeal rejection order dated 31.08.2015.
18. Consequently respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits
to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order and as petitioner has already retired on 31.12.2010 and aged 75
years, therefore, no liberty is granted to the respondents to take action against the
petitioner.
19. With aforesaid observations and directions, preset Writ Petition is
hereby disposed of .
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
"R"
