[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laxman Prasad Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 April, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28727
1 WP-11910-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 15th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11910 of 2026
LAXMAN PRASAD SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Swatantra Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Veer Vikram Singh Dy. A.G. appeared for respondent/State.
ORDER
Counsel for the petitioner contends that there could not be
simultaneous disciplinary proceedings as regards the charges, which are also
subject matter of criminal prosecution.
2. Counsel contends that in the case in hand, the allegations against
the petitioner is that in the capacity of Principal of Government Higher
Secondary School, Devdaha, Black Ramnagar, District Maihar, in absence of
any development work, amount of Rs.24,94,941/- was defalcated at the
behest of the petitioner; in actuality, there was no work pertaining to
constructions, parking sheds, cycle stand etc. It is contended by the counsel
that on the same set of allegations, FIR against the petitioner has been
registered which has been brought on record and on the same set of
allegations, a charge-sheet has also been issued in terms of the provisions of
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28727
2 WP-11910-2026
1966, thus, counsel contends that in view of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Captain M. Paul Antony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines reported
in 1999 (3) SCC 679 , and also Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited Vs.
Girish Vs. and others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636 , the disciplinary
proceedings deserve to be stayed, having been instituted on the identical
charges. Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in WP No.39154/2024 (Kunuru Sharath Vs. Union of
India and Ors.).
3. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.
4. Having considered the submissions and perusal of the FIR reflects
that against the present petitioner, the charges are to the effect that payment
of Rs.24,94,941/- has been made to one Vanee Infrastructure and Material
Supplier, towards the construction of Parking Sheds and Cycle Stand. As per
the charge, the aforesaid work of construction was not ever carried out and in
the absence of work, the aforesaid fund was released in favour of third
agency thereby causing loss to the public exchequer and on the basis of said
allegations, a charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner which is at page
No.58. The charge-sheet issued to the petitioner by the Disciplinary
Authority is reproduced herein:
"आरोप पद . 01
ाचाय, शा.उ.मा. व. दे वदहा के पद भार पर काय त रहते
हुए आपके ारा सं था के िलए लघु िनमाण, पा कग शेड,
सायकल टड हे तु िनमाण हे तु संचालनालय ारा आवं टत
रािश . 24,95,000 / (चौबीस लाख पंचा नवे हजार .) म से
व ालय म काय कराये बना ह . 2494941/- (चौबीस लाख
चौरा नवे हजार नौ सौ इकतालीस .) का भुगतान वाणी
इ ाइ चर एवं मटे रयल स लायर भोपाल को करने हे तु
कूटरिचत तर के से वीकृ आदे श जार कर शासक य
धनरािश का भुगतान करया गया।
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28727
3 WP-11910-2026
आपका उ कृ य म. . िस वल सेवा (आचरण) िनयम 1965
के िनयम 3 के ितकूल होकर गंभीर व ीय अिनयिमतता
क ण े ी म आता है , जसके िलए आप दोषी ह।
आरोप मांक 02 :- लोक िश ण संचालनालय के आदे श
दनांक 01.09.2025 ारा जार व ीय वीकृ ित अनुसार
व ालय म लघु िनमाण, पा कग शेड, सायकल टड िनमाण
के काय SMDC के मा यम से कराये जाने एवं यय सम त
शासक य िनयम एवं याओं का पालन करते हुए कये
जाने के िनदश दये गये थे, क तु आपके ारा िनधा रत
कया का पालन नह ं कया गया और व ालय म काय
कराए बना एजे सी ारा तुत दे यक को स या पत करते
हुए सुिनयो जत तर के से शासक य रािश का िनयम व
भुगतान कराया गया ।
आपका उ कृ य म. . िस वल सेवा (आचरण) िनयम 1965
के िनयम 3 के वपर त होकर शासक य िनयम िनदश क
अवहे लना क ण े ी म आता है जसके िलए आप दोषी ह।"
5. A perusal of the aforesaid charges reflect that so far as charge No.2
is concerned, there are allegation against the petitioner that in violation of
order dated 01/09/2025 issued by the Directorate of Public Instructions, the
petitioner in absence of execution of work, ensured payment to a third
agency whereas, the work was to be done through SMDC, after ensuring the
norms issued by the Government in that regard. Apparently, charge No.2 is
not mentioned in the FIR which has been lodged against the petitioner.
Charge No.2 is entirely different from the allegations which found part of the
FIR lodged against the petitioner.
6. It is a settled position of law that the Departmental Inquiry as well
as prosecution can proceed simultaneously, and there exists no fetter in
proceedings with the departmental inquiry. Apparently, in the case in hand,
charge No.2, since has no nexus with the FIR lodged against the present
petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition.
7. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28727
4 WP-11910-2026
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha
