[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
H.G. Namdev vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 13 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5833
1 WP-8559-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8559 of 2015
H.G. NAMDEV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Jagjeet Kumar Das -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the order dt. 03-06-2014 (Annexure P/1) may kindly be
directed to be quashed.
(ii) That, the order dated 25-05-2015 (Annexure P/2) may kindly be
directed to be quashed.
(iii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to refund the amount
of Rs. 2,62,400/- which has been recovered by the respondent in
pursuant to order dt. 03-06-2014 with the interest of Rs. 18% P.A.
(iv) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved
by order dated 03.06.2014 passed by respondent No.2 by which one increment of
the petitioner with non cumulative effect has been stopped under the provisions of
rule 10 (4) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5833
2 WP-8559-2015
1966 and by the same order of recovery of Rs.2,62,400/- has been imposed against
the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner has preferred an appeal mentioning the facts
and grounds in detail before the Appellate Authority but the Appellate Authority
has rejected the appeal by non-speaking and unreasoned order dated
25.05.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as the
respondents/Appellate Authority has not assigned reasons for rejecting the
petitioner's appeal is contrary to judgment reported in M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd.
& Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496.
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 appellate authority has also examined the entire
record and on perusal of the material, the order of the competent authority was
affirmed by the appellate authority. Hence after having proper adjudication of the
matter by the appellate authority nothing remains to be interfered in the present
matter and petition prima-facie being devoid of substance deserves to be
dismissed. 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 appeal rejection order dated 25.05.2015 (Annexure
P/2) is quoted herein below:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5833
3 WP-8559-2015
"9/ ी नामदे व, उपयं ी ारा तुत अपील एवं उ अपील पर मुख
अिभयंता दये गये अिभमत के सू म पर णोपरांत यह पाया गया क ी
नामदे व के व लगाये गये आरोप के संबंध म क गई जाँच के उपरांत
मुख अिभयंता के आदे श दनांक 03.06.2014 ारा अिधरो पत द ड उपयु
है ।
अतएव रा य शासन एतद ारा ी एच.जी. नामदे व, उपयं ी लोक वा य
यां क , उपखंड डबरा, जला वािलयर ारा मुख अिभयंता, लोक वा य
यां क वभाग, भोपाल के आदे श कमांक 20/सी-5-जी-195 (पाट-4)/ .अ./
लो. वा.यां. व. / 14 दनांक 03.06.2014 के व रा य शासन को े षत
अपील दनांक 10.07.2014 पूण वचारोपरांत अमा य (Disallow) करता है ।"
6. From perusal of the appeal rejection order issued by the Appellate
Authority dated 25.05.2015, it is clear that the Appellate 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 appeal rejection 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 Punjab
v/s. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 is relevant to quote.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5833
4 WP-8559-2015
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".
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 47 the Honb'le Supreme Court
summarized its discussion. The relevant sub-paragraphs of the said summary are
quoted as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5833
5 WP-8559-2015
"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 argument of counsel for respondent is not sustainable that the
appellate order is reasoned and speaking 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5833
6 WP-8559-2015
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5833
7 WP-8559-2015
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."
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. In view of the above discussions and the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am left with no choice but to set aside appeal rejection order dated
25.05.2015 (Annexure P/2).
14. Considering the aforesaid, petitioner is directed to submit a detailed and
fresh representation within a period of four weeks from today before the Appellate
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5833
8 WP-8559-2015
Authority. The Appellate Authority is directed to consider each and every ground
raised by the petitioner in the earlier appeal as well as in the fresh
representation/appeal and to pass a speaking and reasoned order in accordance
with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.
15. With aforesaid observations and directions, preset Writ Petition is
hereby disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Monika
