[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munsi Lal Mahore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4990
1 WP-25361-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 25361 of 2022
MUNSI LAL MAHORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nitin Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. Monika Mishra- GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23/10/2022 (Annexure P/1)
passed by the District Education Officer, whereby, he has been dismissed
from service under Rule 10(ix) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification,
Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short "CCA Rules") on the ground that
an FIR has been registered against him for serious offences.
2. Facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was
holding the post of Assistant Teacher and was posted at Govt. Primary
School, Arrolli, Development Block Morar, Gwalior. An FIR was registered
against him at Police Station Behat, District Gwalior on 22/10/2022 for
offence punishable under 354 of IPC read with Section 7 & 8 of POCSO
Act. Taking note of the FIR, respondent no.3 passed the impugned order on
the next date i.e. 23/10/2022, thereby, dismissing the petitioner from service
on account of aforesaid FIR registered against him for the serious offences.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4990
2 WP-25361-2022
The aforesaid order has been passed on the directions of the Collector,
Gwalior. Challenging this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition.
3. The impugned order of dismissal from services has been challenged
by the petitioner primarily on the ground of violation of principles of natural
justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
was a confirmed Govt. servant, and therefore, he could not have been
dismissed from service merely on registration of FIR against him. Learned
counsel referred to the provisions of Rule 10 of CCA Rules and submitted
that no punishment could have been imposed upon the petitioner without
conducting departmental enquiry. He also submitted that the petitioner was
falsely implicated in the criminal case because of the political rivalry of the
parents of children, and therefore, without affording him opportunity of
hearing, the petitioner could not have been dismissed from service.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the State supported the impugned
action of respondent no.2 & 3. She submitted that the petitioner was working
as Teacher and the allegations made against him are with regard to
misbehaviour with the minor girl students constituting serious offence under
the POCSO Act which could not have been tolerated. Learned counsel
argued that Rule 19 of the CCA Rules empowers the competent authority to
waive the procedure for conducting enquiry in cases of involvement of a
Govt. servant in serious criminal acts. She also submitted that during the
pendency of this petition, the petitioner has been convicted for the aforesaid
offence vide judgment dated 8/4/2024 passed in Special Case (Sessions)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4990
3 WP-25361-2022
No.288/2022 by XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gwalior. She thus
submitted that since the allegations levelled against the petitioner have been
duly established in the criminal case, the petitioner even otherwise does not
warrant continuance in service.
5. The learned Govt. Advocate further pointed out that the petitioner
was arrested on 24/10/2022 and he remained in custody till 7/7/2025 when
this Court, while suspending his remaining jail sentence, enlarged him on
bail in Cr.A. No.6201/2024. She thus submitted that based upon the
conviction of the petitioner, the impugned order is justified and does not
warrant any interference in the present writ petition. She therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
7. It is not in dispute that the impugned order dated 23/10/2022 was
passed based upon the FIR registered against the petitioner on 22/10/2022.
The impugned order refers to Rule 10(ix) of the CCA Rules, which
contemplates major punishment of dismissal from service.
8. The opening words of Rule 14 of CCA Rules provides that " No
order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 10
shall be made except after an inquiry held". The punishment order of
dismissal from service, therefore, could not have been passed without
conducting enquiry. The learned Govt. Advocate pressed into service Rule
19 to justify the impugned action. However, Rule 19 empowers the authority
to pass order without inquiry only in case of conviction of a Govt. servant in
a criminal charge. Admittedly, only FIR was registered against the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4990
4 WP-25361-2022
and was not convicted, when the impugned order was passed. The impugned
order is, therefore, not in consonance with either Rule 14 or Rule 19 of CCA
Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, right in submitting
that the major punishment could not have been imposed upon the petitioner
without conducting departmental enquiry.
9. The learned counsel for respondents argued that the petitioner has
been convicted for offence alleged against him, during the pendency of this
petition. She submitted that, based upon his subsequent conviction, the
impugned order is not liable for interference. To appreciate this contention,
the facts relating to petitioner's involvement in criminal case needs to be
examined.
10. In connection with the aforesaid crime, petitioner was arrested on
24/10/2022. His bail application was rejected by the Special Court, Gwalior
on 31/10/2022. As stated by learned Govt. counsel, the petitioner was
thereafter convicted vide judgment dated 8/4/2024 for the offence alleged
against him. The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction before
this Court in Cr.A. No.6201/2024, wherein, he has been enlarged on bail
vide order dated 7/7/2025. Thus, the petitioner has remained in custody for 2
years and 9 months.
11. For the purpose of appreciating the contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner that petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case,
this Court has gone through the judgment dated 8/4/2024 passed in criminal
case from the files of Cr.A. No.6201/2024 (available on ERP). It is gathered
that the minor victim has unequivocally supported the allegation not only in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4990
5 WP-25361-2022
her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. but also in her statement
recorded during trial. The petitioner has been convicted based upon the
statement of the victim who was aged about eight years on the date of
incident.
12. Therefore, the issue for consideration is as to whether based upon
petitioner's subsequent conviction, the impugned order is not liable to be set
aside? The Apex Court in the case of Chandra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (2003)6 SCC 545 has held in para 42 & 43 as
under:-
"42. In any event, even assuming that there is some
force in the contention of the appellants, this Court will
be justified in following Taherakhatoon v. Salambin
Mohd. [(1999) 2 SCC 635] wherein this Court declared
that even if the appellants' contention is right in law
having regard to the overall circumstances of the case,
this Court would be justified in declining to grant relief
under Article 136 while declaring the law in favour of
the appellants.
43. Issuance of a writ of certiorari is a discretionary
remedy. (See Champalal Binani v. CIT [(1971) 3 SCC
20 : AIR 1970 SC 645] .) The High Court and
consequently this Court while exercising their
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the
Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal
order although it would be lawful to do so. In a given
case, the High Court or this Court may refuse to extend
the benefit of a discretionary relief to the applicant.
Furthermore, this Court exercised its discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India which need not be exercised in a case where the
impugned judgment is found to be erroneous if by
reason thereof substantial justice is being done.
[See S.D.S. Shipping (P) Ltd. v. Jay Container Services
Co. (P) Ltd. [(2003) 4 Supreme 44] ] Such a relief can
be denied, inter alia, when it would be opposed to
public policy or in a case where quashing of an illegal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4990
6 WP-25361-2022
order would revive another illegal one. This Court also
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India is entitled to pass such order
which will do [ Corrected as per Official Corrigendum
No. F.3/ Ed. B.J./11/2004 dated 27-1-2004] complete
justice to the parties."
13. Similar view is reiterated by Apex Court in the case of Al-Can
Export (P) Ltd. vs. Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Ltd. reported in (2024)9
SCC 94 wherein the Court held as under:
"99. It is well-settled principle in law that issuance of a
writ or quashing/setting aside of an order if revives
another pernicious or wrong or illegal order then in that
eventuality the writ court should not interfere in the
matter and should refuse to exercise its discretionary
power conferred upon it under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The writ court should not quash the order
if it revives a wrong or illegal order. (Vide : Gadde
Venkateswara Rao v. State of A.P. [Gadde
Venkateswara Rao v. State of A.P. , 1965 SCC OnLine
SC 25 : AIR 1966 SC 828] ; Chintamani Saran Nath
Shahdeo v. State of Bihar [Chintamani Saran Nath
Shahdeo v. State of Bihar , (1999) 8 SCC 16 : AIR 1999
SC 3609] ; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237 : AIR 1999
SC 2583]; Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa v. State of
Karnataka [Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa v. State of
Karnataka, (2000) 7 SCC 238 : 5 SCEC 82 : AIR 2000
SC 2976] ; Chandra Singh v. State of
Rajasthan [Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan , (2003)
6 SCC 545 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 951 : AIR 2003 SC
2889] and Raj Kumar Soni v. State of U.P. [Raj Kumar
Soni v. State of U.P. , (2007) 10 SCC 635] )."
14. Thus, the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, being equitable and discretionary, even though, the
law is declared in favour of petitioner, the relief can be denied to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4990
7 WP-25361-2022
petitioner based upon the circumstances.
15. After parents, teachers influence a child the most and have a big
part in shaping their personalities and future. So, it is important that teachers
lead by example and not just by words. Teachers have to be ethical in their
behaviour and no one can be allowed to act as teacher, who has failed to
exhibit good character. As noted above, the petitioner has been held guilty of
the offence under a serious offence under POCSO Act. The victim minor
child has made categorical allegations against the petitioner during the trial.
The petitioner, being a teacher, is expected to maintain high standard of
moral ethics. Thus, even though, the impugned order of punishment dated
23/10/2022 is found to have been passed in violation of procedure prescribed
under CCA Rules, since the petitioner has been convicted for the serious
offence, at this stage, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere
with the punishment order.
16. In view of the discussion made, the order dated 23/10/2022 passed
by respondent no.3 on the direction of respondent no.2, is upheld. The
petition is dismissed. However, it is observed that the petitioner would be at
liberty to seek cancellation of the punishment order, in case, he is acquitted
in the criminal appeal pending before this Court.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JPS/-
