[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivram Karoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12011
1 WP-19687-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 10th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 19687 of 2017
SHIVRAM KARORIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rudra Pratap Singh Kaurav, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. Monika Mishra, Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"7.1 That, the impugned order 11.11.2013(Annexure P-
3), 27.03.2015 (Annexure P-5), 22.07.2017 (Annexure
P-8) & 03.11.2017 (Annexure P-9) passed by
respondents may kindly be set-aside.
7.2 That, respondent further may kindly be directed to
provide the increment benefit with all consequential
benefit as well as arrear with interest from due date till
the realization of amount within stipulated period of
two month which is flouted away by passing the said
impugned orders.
7.3 That, any other relief doing justice into the matter
including advocate fee, cost of petition etc. may kindly
awarded to the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that petitioner was
initially entered into the service with respondent department on the post of
Patwari. Thereafter, he got promoted on the post of Revenue Inspector. At
that relevant point of time, i.e. in the year 2013 when petitioner was working
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12011
2 WP-19687-2017
as Revenue Inspector, in the land record office, a show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner stating that irregularity committed by him during the
preparation of gradation list. Thereafter, petitioner submitted reply to the
aforesaid show cause notice. Thereafter, respondents have issued a
punishment order by which decision of withholding of one annual increment
without cumulative effect has been imposed by order dated 11.11.2013.
Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal before Appellate Authority and
Appellate Authority has also rejected the appeal. Thereafter, petitioner
preferred Writ Petition No.6673/2016 which has been disposed of by order
dated 7.11.2016, wherein impugned order dated 11.11.2013 and appeal
rejection order dated 27.03.2015 has been set aside and respondents are
directed to proceed against petitioner in accordance with law after the stage
of submission of petitioner's reply to the show cause notice with special
attention over the facts that petitioner has been superannuated in the month
of September, 2014. It is further submitted that thereafter again without
considering the reply submitted by petitioner again by non-speaking and
unreasoned order representation of petitioner has been rejected and
punishment imposed on 11.11.2013 has been kept as it is. He further submits
that once the order dated 11.11.2013 has been quashed by this Court in
earlier round of litigation, then respondents cannot upheld the order dated
11.11.2013 and even otherwise, impugned order dated 22.07.2017 is non
speaking and unreasoned order. Various facts and grounds mentioned in the
reply has not been considered by respondents. Being aggrieved by the
aforesaid, petitioner has preferred this petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12011
3 WP-19687-2017
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no
infirmity in the order of punishment since petitioner was found guilty of
dereliction of duties and therefore after ascertaining the charges it was found
that petitioner had failed to discharge the duties, therefore, aforementioned
orders passed by the authority is absolutely proportionate and warrants no
interference. It is further submitted that the only scope of interference in the
cases of punishment is to examine the manner in which departmental enquiry
is conducted. In the present case the departmental enquiry was conducted
keeping in view of the norms of natural justice and fair play. On these
grounds he prays for rejection of this petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Important part of the punishment order dated 22.07.2017(Annexure
P-8) is quoted herein below:-
"कमांक 19 /आ.भू.अ./ सतकता-2/2017 ी
िशवराम करो रया राज व िनर क (वतमान मे
सेवा िनवृ ) को राज व िनर क पदकम सूची
संधारण तथा काशन म गंभीर अिनयिमतताऐं
बरतने के फल व प कायालयीन आदे श
48/क/आ.भू.अ./सतकता-2/2013 दनांक 11-11-
2013 ारा 01 वेतन वृ असंचयी भाव से रोकने
क शा त से द डत कया गया है । त संबंध मे
ी करो रया ारा शासन को तुत अपोलीथ
अ यावेदन िनर त कर उ आदे श दनांक 11-
11-2013 को यथावत रखा गया है ।
2- ी करो रया ारा माननीय उ च यायालय
वािलयर के सम दायर यािचका कमांक ड यू.
पी. एस 6373/2016 मे पा रत िनणय दनांक 07-
11-2016 के प रपालन मे ी िशवराम करो रया
को सुनवाई का अवसर दया गया तथा उसके तक
वण कये गये ।
3--मैने माननीय यायालय के िनदश अनुकम मे
करण का प रशीलन एवं उपल ध अिभलेख का
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12011
4 WP-19687-2017
अ ययन कया । ी िशवराम करो रया ारा
कया गया उपयु कृ य असावधानीपूण एवं
अनु रदािय व पूण कायशैली का ोतक है । ी
करो रया ारा सम मे बताये गये तक
समाधानकारक नह पाये गये। अतएव ी
करो रया को दया गया दं ड सवथा उिचत व, सह
है , जसे यथावत रखा जाता है । ी करो रया ारा
तुत अ यावेदन सम वचIरोपरा त अमा य
कया जाता है ।"
6. From perusal of the punishment order issued by the Disciplinary
Authority dated 22.07.2017, 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 Disciplinary Authority must apply its mind to the entire facts and
circumstances and record valid and justifiable reason and all grounds in
support of its conclusion.
7. On perusal of the punishment order, it does not appear to be a
speaking one.
8. 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
considered before passing the prejudicial order.
9. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12011
5 WP-19687-2017
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.
10. 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" 31.
11. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12011
6 WP-19687-2017
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".
12. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12011
7 WP-19687-2017
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 quasi-
judicial 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 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12011
8 WP-19687-2017
"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."
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."
13. Writ Petition No.6673/2016 which has been disposed of by order
dated 7.11.2016, wherein impugned order dated 11.11.2013 and appeal
rejection order dated 27.03.2015 has been set aside. Thereafter, again
without considering the reply submitted by petitioner again by non-speaking
and unreasoned order representation of petitioner has been rejected and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12011
9 WP-19687-2017
punishment imposed on 11.11.2013 has been kept as it is. Once the order
dated 11.11.2013 has been quashed by this Court in earlier round of
litigation, then respondents cannot upheld the order dated 11.11.2013 and
even otherwise, impugned order dated 22.07.2017 is non speaking and
unreasoned order. Various facts and grounds mentioned in the reply has not
been considered by respondents.
14. 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 22.07.2017(Anneuxre P-8).
15. 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
30.09.2014 and respondents have not considered the judgment dated
7.11.2016 passed in WP No.6673/2016 and relied upon the order which has
already been quashed by this Court in earlier round of litigation, therefore,
no liberty is granted to the respondents to take action against the petitioner.
16. With aforesaid observations and directions, preset Writ Petition is
hereby disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
"R"
