[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku.Jyoti Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4447
1 WP-4161-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 4th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 4161 of 2026
KU.JYOTI CHATURVEDI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dharmendra Singh Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Nayak - Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 23.1.2026, whereby a
minor punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative
effect has been imposed upon the petitioner.
2 . The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the
petitioner is working as In-Charge Project Officer, Project Vijapur-1, in
the Women and Child Development Department at Sheopur. A show-
cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.12.2025, Annexure P/2 to
which the petitioner gave detailed reply on 22.12.2025, Annexure P/3.
Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed on 23.1.2026, whereby
the aforesaid punishment has been imposed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4447
2 WP-4161-2026
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
has given detailed explanation to the allegations made in the show-cause
notice. However, the same has not been considered by the authorities.
4 . Learned Government Advocate, on advance notice, tried to
justify the impugned order of punishment by referring to the explanation
given by the petitioner in her reply.
5. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
6 . The only ground raised by the petitioner in this petition
challenging the impugned order is non-consideration of her reply dated
22.12.2025. A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.1.2026, it is
evident that except by stating that the petitioner's reply is not found
satisfactory, no reasons have been assigned. The Apex Court has
considered the necessity of assigning reasons while passing
administrative as also quashi judicial orders in the case of Kranti
Associates (P) Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan reported in (2010)9 SCC
496. The Court summarised the legal position as under:-
"47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4447
3 WP-4161-2026
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 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.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both
judicial accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4447
4 WP-4161-2026
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 Harvard Law Review 731-37].)
(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 Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553]
EHRR, 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".
(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"."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4447
5 WP-4161-2026
Similar view is reiterated in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private
Limited (supra).
7 . Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order of punishment is liable to be set aside
on this short ground for want of reasons for not accepting the
explanation of the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the order dated 23.1.2026 is set aside. The matter
is remitted to respondent No.2 for reconsideration and passing of a
speaking order by assigning reasons for not accepting the explanation of
the petitioner.
9. Let a fresh order be passed within a period of 60 days from the
date of communication of certified copy of this order.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
