[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prayagnarayan vs Principal Scindia School Fort Gwalior on 19 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6511
1 WP-2148-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 19th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 2148 of 2016
PRAYAGNARAYAN
Versus
PRINCIPAL SCINDIA SCHOOL FORT GWALIOR
Appearance:
Shri Prem Singh Pal - learned counsel for petitioner.
Ms.Chitra Bais - learned counsel for respondent.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking following relief(s):
"7.1 यह क, अने चर पी/1 एंव अने चर पी/2 तथा अने चर पी-3
आधारह न होने के कारण िनर त करने क कृ पा क जाव, एवं
ितयािचकाकता मांक-1 को आदे िशत कया जावे क, यािचकाकता
को दनांक 11/07/2012 से यूट पर मा य कये जाने के आदे श दे ने क
कृ पा क जाव।
7.2. यह क, यािचकाकता को अने चर पी-1, 2, 3 के अनुसार काय से
पृथक करने एवं काय पर रखने तक क अविध का पछला सम त वेतन
भी भुगतान करने हे तु िनदिशत कया जाव।
7.3 यह क, अ य कोई सहायता, अनुतोष यायालय याय हत म उिचत
समझे वह यािचकाकता को ितयािचकाकतागण से दलाने क कृ पा क
जाव।"
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was
appointed to the post of Peon (Class-IV employee) in the respondent School
on 08.07.1984. It is further submitted that petitioner completed 28 years of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6511
2 WP-2148-2016
service without any allegation or misconduct. However, all of a sudden, a
charge-sheet was issued to petitioner and along with the charge-sheet, the list
of witnesses and documents was not supplied. Thereafter, an inquiry was
conducted. It is further submitted that at the time of inquiry, proper
opportunity of being heard was not afforded to petitioner and thereafter his
services were terminated. Petitioner filed a petition before the Labour
Commissioner, Gwalior; however, the Labour Court rejected the claim of
petitioner and upheld the order of dismissal. It is further submitted that the
services of petitioner were terminated without affording proper opportunity
of hearing, without conducting a fair inquiry and without following the
principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the documents and
copies of statements of the management witnesses were not supplied to
petitioner. It is further submitted that neither any item was recovered from
the petitioner nor were any map of the place, seizure memo, or panchnama
prepared. No proper opportunity was provided to petitioner to defend
himself. It is further submitted that the Labour Court failed to consider the
written submissions filed by petitioner. It is further submitted that with mala
fide intention, a junior and colleague-advocate of the employer was
appointed as the Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry and the respondents
did not grant any opportunity to petitioner to take assistance of an advocate
during the inquiry proceedings. It is further submitted that petitioner is an
uneducated person and at the time of inquiry, no opportunity was given to
have the statements read over and explained to him by any other person. The
aforesaid aspect has also not been considered by the Labour Court. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6511
3 WP-2148-2016
further submitted that the petitioner has not admitted the charges. During the
inquiry, his signatures were obtained on certain papers and being an illiterate
person, he had no knowledge of what was written therein and merely affixed
his signature. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali v.
Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another AIR 2016 SC 101 and rendered
by High Court of Madhya Pradesh Chatrapal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in 2024 (I) MPWN 48, and rendered by Delhi High Court Indian
Bank and others v. Shri Praveen Kumar .
3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that entire
enquiry was conducted in accordance with the Rules of the Scindia School
and the Standing Orders. Under the said Rules and Standing Orders, there is
no provision requiring copies of documents to be annexed along with the
charge-sheet. The charge-sheet was duly served upon petitioner as per the
applicable Rules and there was no illegality in its service. It is further
submitted that petitioner had filed an application (Annexure P/5) dated
24.02.2014 before the Labour Court and vide order dated 29.04.2014, the
Labour Court disposed of the said application by observing that all
documents mentioned therein had already been supplied to petitioner. Only a
video CD was directed to be supplied which was accordingly furnished to
petitioner on 27.08.2014. It is further submitted that petitioner suppressed
material facts regarding his admission of guilt. In his reply to the charge-
sheet, petitioner admitted the charges levelled against him as reflected in
Ex.2 (Page No. 11 of the reply). Learned counsel for respondent further
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6511
4 WP-2148-2016
submits that Labour Court has recorded a finding that proper opportunity to
lead defence evidence was afforded to petitioner during the enquiry.
However, with mala fide intention, petitioner did not file the complete
statement and placed only his affidavit and a portion of the cross-
examination has not been submitted / filed. It is further submitted that
learned Labour Court considered all the written submissions made by
petitioner and thereafter passed the impugned order. The appointment of a
junior and colleague-advocate of the employer as the Inquiry Officer is
permissible and there is no illegality in such appointment, as the same was
made in accordance with the Service Rules of the School. It is further
submitted that petitioner never sought assistance of an advocate during the
inquiry proceedings. As per the Service Rules, the inquiry was a domestic
inquiry and such in-house inquiries are not akin to civil suits or criminal
proceedings. The Inquiry Officer provided full opportunity to petitioner to
defend himself. Learned counsel for respondent further submits that the
services of petitioner were terminated on account of serious charges of
selling tobacco, cigarettes, bidi, gutka and other such items within the school
premises. The State and Central Governments have issued directions and
framed rules prohibiting the sale of such items within specified areas of
school premises. The petitioner was residing within the school campus,
where students used to reside in hostels attend classes and use the
playgrounds. It is further submitted that the entire statement of claim filed by
petitioner was duly considered by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court
while passing the impugned award. The procedure for conducting an inquiry
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6511
5 WP-2148-2016
and taking disciplinary action is specifically provided in the Service Rules of
the School; therefore, the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules are not applicable. It is further submitted that the standard of proof
applicable to domestic inquiries is governed by the Service Rules of the
School, and petitioner is erroneously contending that the standard of proof
should be akin to that of a criminal trial. The inquiry was conducted in a fair
manner and petitioner himself admitted his guilt in his reply to the charge-
sheet as well as in his reply to the show-cause notice dated 29.06.2012
(Annexure R/9). It is further submitted that punishment imposed upon
petitioner is commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. While
exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India this Court does not correct mere errors of fact or law and the scope of
interference is very limited. It is further submitted that the charges levelled
against the petitioner are serious in nature and have been duly proved in a
full-fledged domestic/departmental inquiry. The Inquiry Officer found the
petitioner guilty of the charges and thereafter his services were terminated
after affording proper opportunity of hearing. The Labour Court has
considered all the plea and facts and grounds and objections raised by
petitioner and recorded findings based on the material available on record. In
the absence of any perversity, the award cannot be interfered with by this
Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
5. On perusal of record, it is gathered that entire enquiry was conducted in
accordance with the Rules of the Scindia School and the Standing Orders. Under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6511
6 WP-2148-2016
the said Rules and Standing Orders, there is no provision requiring copies of
documents to be annexed along with the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet was duly
served upon petitioner as per the applicable Rules and there was no illegality in
its service. Petitioner had filed an application (Annexure P/5) dated 24.02.2014
before the Labour Court and vide order dated 29.04.2014, the Labour Court
disposed of the said application by observing that all documents mentioned
therein had already been supplied to petitioner. Only a video CD was directed to
be supplied which was accordingly furnished to petitioner on 27.08.2014.
Petitioner suppressed material facts regarding his admission of guilt. In his reply
to the charge-sheet, petitioner admitted the charges levelled against him as
reflected in Ex.2 (Page No. 11 of the reply). Labour Court has recorded a finding
that proper opportunity to lead defence evidence was afforded to petitioner during
the enquiry. However, with mala fide intention, petitioner did not file the
complete statement and placed only his affidavit and a portion of the cross-
examination on record. Learned Labour Court considered all the written
submissions made by petitioner and thereafter passed the impugned order. The
appointment of colleague-advocate of the employer as the Inquiry Officer is
permissible and there is no illegality in such appointment, as the same was made
in accordance with the Service Rules of the School. Petitioner never sought
assistance of an advocate during the inquiry proceedings. As per the Service
Rules, the inquiry was a domestic inquiry and such in-house inquiries are not akin
to civil suits or criminal proceedings. The Inquiry Officer provided full
opportunity to petitioner to defend himself. The services of petitioner were
terminated on account of serious charges of selling tobacco, cigarettes, bidi, gutka
and other such items within the school premises. The State and Central
Governments have issued directions and framed rules prohibiting the sale of such
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6511
7 WP-2148-2016
items within specified areas of school premises. The petitioner was residing
within the school campus, where students used to reside in hostels, attend classes
and use the playgrounds. The entire statement of claim filed by petitioner was
duly considered by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court while passing the
impugned award. The procedure for conducting an inquiry and taking disciplinary
action is specifically provided in the Service Rules of the School; therefore, the
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules are not applicable. The
standard of proof applicable to domestic inquiries is governed by the Service
Rules of the School and petitioner is erroneously contending that the standard of
proof should be akin to that of a criminal trial. The inquiry was conducted in a fair
manner and petitioner himself admitted his guilt in his reply to the charge-sheet
as well as in his reply to the show-cause notice dated 29.06.2012 (Annexure R/9).
Punishment imposed upon petitioner is commensurate with the gravity of the
misconduct. While exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India this Court does not correct mere errors of fact or law and the
scope of interference is very limited. The charges levelled against the petitioner
are serious in nature and have been duly proved in a full-fledged
domestic/departmental inquiry. The Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of
the charges and thereafter his services were terminated after affording proper
opportunity of hearing. The Labour Court has considered all the plea and facts,
grounds and objections raised by petitioner and recorded findings based on the
material available on record. In the absence of any perversity, the award cannot be
interfered with by this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
6. The Supreme Court in a case of Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar Vs. Paschim
Gujrat Vij Company Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.4558 of 2014) has considered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6511
8 WP-2148-2016
the scope of interference in the matter of award/order passed by the Labour Court
while entertaining the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution by the High
Court. The observation made by the Supreme Court is as under:-
"9. We find the judgment and award of the Labour Court well
reasoned and based on facts and evidence on record. The High
Court has erred in its exercise of power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to annul the findings of the Labour Court in
its award as it is well settled law that the High Court cannot
exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution as an
appellate court or reappreciate evidence and record its findings on
the contentious points. Only if there is a serious error of law or the
findings recorded suffer from error apparent on record, can the
High Court quash the order of a lower court. The Labour Court in
the present case has satisfactorily exercised its original jurisdiction
and properly appreciated the facts and legal evidence on record
and given a well reasoned order and answered the points of dispute
in favour of the appellant. The High Court had no reason to
interfere with the same as the award of the Labour Court was
based on sound and cogent reasoning, which has served the ends
of justice.
It is relevant to mention that in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra
Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 338], with
regard to the limitations of the High Court to exercise its
jurisdiction under Article 227, it was held in para 49 that:
"The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the
minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a
halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in
order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the
tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court." It was also
held that:
"High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power
of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere
with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in
exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of
the court or tribunal subordinate to it." Thus it is clear, that the
High Court has to exercise its power under Article 227 of the
Constitution judiciously and to further the ends of justice.
In the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing
Corpn. [(2010) 3 SCC 192 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 1146] this Court
held that: "20. ... In view of the above discussion, we hold that
the learned Single Judge of the High Court committed serious
jurisdictional error and unjustifiably interfered with the award of
reinstatement passed by the Labour Court with compensation of
Rs 87,582 by entertaining a wholly unfounded plea that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6511
9 WP-2148-2016
appellant was appointed in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution and the Regulations.""
7. Further, in a case reported in (2010) 9 SCC 385 parties being Jai
Singh and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another, the
Supreme Court has dealt with the nature and scope of Article 227 of
Constitution and observed as under:-
"15. We have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned
counsel. Before we consider the factual and legal issues involved
herein, we may notice certain well-recognised principles
governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly the High
Court, under this article, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all
subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals,
exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their
authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to
ensure that they act in accordance with the well-established
principles of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of
superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no
revision or appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under
this article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, well
to remember the well-known adage that greater the power, greater
the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is,
therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care,
caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be
within the well-recognised constraints. It can not be exercised like
a "bull in a china shop", to correct all errors of judgment of a
court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This
correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders
have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse
of fundamental principles of law or justice."
8. Giving anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the
present case, this Court finds that the judgment in Prem Nath Bali, Chartapal
and Shri Praveen Kumar (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for
petitioner, is not applicable to it. The action taken against petitioner was
strictly in accordance with the Service Rules of the School. Moreover, the
petitioner himself had admitted his guilt; therefore, the ratio laid down in the
aforesaid judgment has no application to the facts of the present matter.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6511
10 WP-2148-2016
9. In view of the foregoing discussion and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case in their entirety, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the present petition, being sans substance, is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Ahmad
