[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kapil Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:759
1 WP-2215-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 8 th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 2215 of 2017
KAPIL AHIRWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Rathore - learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Dilip Awasthi - learned Government Advocate for respondents/State.
Shri Anil Sharma - learned counsel for respondent No.5.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):
"i- The orders impugned annexure P/1 and P/4 may kindly be quashed.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case same may kindly be granted to the
petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that show cause notice has been issued
by the respondent No.2 to petitioner stating that why disciplinary action be not
taken against him and why not two annual increments withheld with cumulative
effect. It is further submitted that petitioner submitted his reply on 26.6.2015
(Annexure P/3) specifically stating that he did not belong to the zone in which he
was working and that the allegations levelled against him wre not application to
him. The aforesaid action was taken only to harass petitioner. It is further
submitted that without conducting any equniry or considering the reply submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:759
2 WP-2215-2017
by petitioner, a non-speaking and unreasoned order was issued imposing
punishment of withholding one annual without cumulative effect by order dated
26.3.2016. It is further submitted that the appellate authority has also not
considered the aforesaid aspects and rejected the appeal by order dated 2.3.2017
without considering the facts and grounds mentioned in the appeal memo
(annexure P/5) which was also a non-speaking and unreasoned order.
3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate for respondents/State as well as
learned counsel for respondent No.5 opposed the prayer made by learned counsel
for petitioner and supported the impugned order. It is further submitted that after
considering the reply to the show-cause notice of petitioner, the
respondent/concerned authority passed the impugned order.
4. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
5. Before moving ahead, it would be apt to quote impugned order dated
26.3.2016 (Annexure P/4) for ready reference and convenience:
"उप रव णत अनुशासना मक कृ य के संबंध म, आपके ारा तुत उ र
एवं बंधक, मुरार जोन ारा प मांक- 340 दनांक 08.06.15 से दए गए
अिभमत के काश म अधोह ता रकता ारा िनणय िलया गया क
उप रव णत ता वत शा त के थान पर एक वा षक वेतनवृ असंचयी
भाव से रोक द जावे।
अतः एत ारा एक वा षक वेतनवृ असंचयी भाव से रोक जाने क शा त
अिधरो पत कए जाने का आदे श पा रत कया जाता है ।"
6. Perusal of impugned order reveals that without considering the detailed reply
(Annexure P/3) dated 26.6.2015, it has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority
which is non-speaking and unreasoned.
7. From perusal of the punishment order issued by the Disciplinary Authority
dated 26.3.2016 it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority while passing the order
imposing punishment upon petitioner is exercising quasi judicial powers and even
the quasi judicial order must be speaking one. The Disciplinary Authority must
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:759
3 WP-2215-2017
apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances and record valid and
justifiable reasons and all grounds in support of its conclusion. However, in the
present case, the impugned punishment order does not appear to be a speaking
order.
8. From perusal of the punishment order issued by the Appellate Authority
dated 2.3.2017 it is clear that the Appellate Authority while passing the order
imposing punishment upon petitioner is exercising quasi judicial powers and even
the quasi judicial order must be speaking one. The Appellate Authority must
apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances and record valid and
justifiable reasons and all grounds in support of its conclusion. The relevant paras
of appeal rejection order dated 2.3.2017 (Annexure P/1) are quoted below for
ready reference and convenience:
"और यह क, ी क पल अ हरवार िश ण सहायक, ारा उ द डादे श से यिथत
होकर द डादे श को अपा त कये जाने हे तु उनके प दनांक 18.05.16 के ारा तुत
अपील तुत क गई।
और यह क, ी क पल अ हरवार, िश ण सहायक ारा तुत अपील म व णत
त य तथा स पूण करण का पर ण कया गया एवं वचारोपरा त अपील
संतोषजनक न पाये जाने पर अधोह ता रकता ारा उप महा बंधक नगर संभाग पूव
वािलयर के द डादे श मांक--उम /नसंपूव/ टे न /15/763-64 दनांक 26.03.2016 से
अिधरो पत द ड को यथावत रखते हुए अपील िनर त कये जाने का िनणय िलया गया
है ।
अतः एत ारा उप महा बंधक नगर संभाग पूव, वािलयर के द डादे श मांक--
उम /नसंपूव/ टे न /15/763-64 दनांक 26.03.2016 को यथावत रखते हुए ी क पल
अ हरवार िश ण सहायक क अपील को िनर त कया जाता है ।"
9. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:759
4 WP-2215-2017
face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even by an administrative
authority affecting the rights of parties must be speaking one. The affected party
must know how his/her case or defence was considered before passing the
prejudicial order.
10. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab
vs. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 is relevant to quote. 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.
11. 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" 31.
12. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:759
5 WP-2215-2017
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:-
"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".
1 3 . As disciplinary authority has issued a non-speaking and unreasoned order,
therefore, in absence of reason in the punishment order cannot be compensated by
disclosure of reason in the appellate order, therefore, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:759
6 WP-2215-2017
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:759
7 WP-2215-2017
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:759
8 WP-2215-2017
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."
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India &
Ors. (2001) 9 SCC 180, has held as under:-
"3. While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having
regard to the rule position which expressly says that "withholding
increments of pay with or without cumulative effect" is a minor
penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition.
Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to
the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with
respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual
and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should
also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of
natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with."
15. Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the
delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the
charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by
the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the
minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement
cannot be dispensed with. As disciplinary authority has issued a non-speaking and
unreasoned order, therefore, in absence of reasons, the punishment order cannot
be compensated by disclosure of reason in the appellate order. Even the appellate
order is also non-speaking and unreasoned and has been passed without
considering the facts mentioned in the appeal memo. Since the charges are factual
in nature and they have been denied by the delinquent/petitioner, a regular
departmental enquiry ought to been conducted before awarding even a minor
punishment which has not been done in the present case.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:759
9 WP-2215-2017
16. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order
dated 26.3.2016 (Annexure P/4) and appeal rejection order dated 2.3.2017
(Annexure P/1) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to give all
consequential benefit to petitioner within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order. However, the respondents are granted
liberty to take action against petitioner in accordance with law.
17. With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.
18. Pending interlocutory applications (if any) are disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Ahmad
