[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Murti Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1037
1 W.P. No.13049/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No.13049 of 2024
RAM MURTI RAWAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHER
___________________________________________________________________
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Manav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Bhatia - Advocate for respondents/State
______________________________________________________________
Reserved on : 04/12/2025
Post on : 13/01/2026
______________________________________________________________
ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following relief:-
"a) That, this Hon'ble Court may pleased to issue
appropriate writ/order/direction to quash the order
dated 19/07/2023 (Annexure-P/1) and fresh report
dated 03/05/2024 (Annexure P/2).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1037
b) That, respondents may further be directed to
exonerate the petitioner from the enquiry and grant
all consequential benefits.
c) That, this Writ Petition may kindly be allowed
with cost.
d) That, this Hon'ble Court may further pleased to
grant any other relief, if deem fits in present facts
and circumstances."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is
working on the post of Constable and is presently posted at
Police Station Makdone, District Ujjain (M.P.), which falls
well within the writ jurisdiction of this High Court. The
petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the year 2012 and
has since been discharging his duties and is currently working
at Police Station Makdone, District Ujjain.
3. It is further the case of the petitioner that on
11.08.2020, the petitioner was served with a joint charge-sheet
along with two other employees. Prior thereto, an order for
conducting a joint enquiry was passed on 06.08.2020, even
before issuance of the charge-sheet and without affording the
petitioner an opportunity to submit his reply. According to the
petitioner, the passing of the order for joint enquiry prior to
issuance of the charge-sheet demonstrates mala fides on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1037
part of the Authority, as the decision to hold a joint enquiry
was taken without following due process.
4. It is further stated that after completion of the enquiry,
the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report before the
Competent Authority, wherein the petitioner was exonerated
from the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the Deputy
Inspector General of Police directed the Enquiry Officer,
namely Shri Abhishek Anand to submit a fresh report,
pursuant to which a fresh report was submitted wherein the
petitioner was again exonerated from the charges. The
petitioner contends that in respect of the remand and
preparation of the fresh report, no notice was issued to him and
he was not made aware of the same, though reference to the
said report was subsequently made in a notice dated
30.04.2024.
5. It is also the case of the petitioner that by order dated
19.07.2023, the Deputy Inspector General of Police once again
remanded the matter with certain observations and directed
submission of another fresh report. Aggrieved by the said
remand, the petitioner submitted an application raising
objections to the remand order; however, the same was
overlooked and rejected by order dated 07.08.2023, merely
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1037
informing the petitioner that the remand was in accordance
with law. It is alleged that thereafter, without any change in the
evidence and without any new material on record, the new
Enquiry Officer altered the findings recorded in the earlier
reports and by a new report held two of the charges as proved
against the petitioner, of which report was served upon the
petitioner on 03.05.2024 along with a letter dated 30.04.2024.
6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Ujjain Range, has acted beyond
his jurisdiction and contrary to Rule 15 of the Madhya Pradesh
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1966. It is contended that under Rule 15(1), the Disciplinary
Authority is empowered only to remit the matter to the enquiry
officer for further enquiry after recording reasons in writing
and not to direct submission of a fresh enquiry report on the
same material. According to the petitioner, if the disciplinary
authority is dissatisfied with the findings of the enquiry
officer, it may record its own findings on the basis of the
existing material after granting an opportunity of hearing to the
concerned employee but it cannot compel the Enquiry Officer
to submit a fresh report based on identical evidence.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1037
7. The counsel further submits that in the present case,
the Enquiry Officer had initially submitted a report
exonerating the petitioner of all charges. Thereafter, without
disturbing those findings and without assigning any reasons,
the Deputy Inspector General of Police directed submission of
a fresh enquiry report. It is alleged that pursuant to the
directions of the Higher Authority, the Enquiry Officer, being
subordinate to the Disciplinary Authority, altered the findings
without any change in the material on record and held two
charges proved against the petitioner, demonstrating non-
application of independent mind. It is also submitted that on
earlier occasions, despite directions for reconsideration, the
findings were not altered, but subsequently, by order dated
19.07.2023, a fresh report was again directed and a different
enquiry officer submitted a report holding two charges proved.
8. It is further contended that the initiation of the Enquiry
itself is contrary to settled law, as the provisions of the
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1966 are not applicable to the post of
Constable, for whom only the Madhya Pradesh Police
Regulations apply. The manner of initiation of proceedings is
alleged to be mala fide, inasmuch as the order for joint enquiry
was passed on 06.08.2020, prior to issuance of the charge-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1037
sheet on 11.08.2020 and before consideration of the
petitioner's reply, which is contrary to the settled principle that
a joint enquiry can be ordered only after receipt and
consideration of the delinquent employee's reply to the
charge-sheet.
9. The counsel also submits that the Disciplinary
Authority failed to consider the petitioner's reply to the
charge-sheet before ordering continuation of enquiry
proceedings and that the impugned order dated 19.07.2023
was passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner,
thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is asserted
that the fresh enquiry report has been prepared to satisfy the
desire of the Higher Authority and not by independent
application of mind, rendering the process unfair and contrary
to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this
Court. It is lastly submitted that the impugned action is illegal,
arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law and that all other
grounds are reserved to be urged at the time of hearing.
10. The counsel for the respondent have vehemently
opposed all the allegations raised by the petitioner by stating
that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the order dated 19.07.2023, whereby the Deputy
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1037
Inspector General of Police, Ujjain Range, remanded the
matter to the Enquiry Officer for submission of a fresh
Enquiry Report. It is contended that the petitioner has wrongly
alleged violation of Rule 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966,
whereas the said order was passed strictly in accordance with
law, as the earlier Enquiry Report suffered from improper
appreciation of evidence and statements on record.
11. It is further submitted that the petitioner was appointed
as a Police Constable in the year 2012 and is presently posted
at Police Station Makdon, District Ujjain. On 11.08.2020, a
joint charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner along with two
other employees alleging serious misconduct, including
malpractice, illegal gratification, harassment, and coercion of
women to lodge false complaints, as well as forcibly recording
and obtaining signatures on statements. A Departmental
Enquiry was conducted, statements were recorded, and an
enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority.
12. The Disciplinary Authority, upon examining the
enquiry report, found that the evidence and statements had not
been properly appreciated and, therefore, by order dated
19.07.2023, remitted the matter to the Enquiry Officer for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1037
reconsideration of the material already on record. Pursuant
thereto, the Enquiry Officer reassessed the evidence and
submitted a fresh enquiry report dated 03.05.2024 with certain
modifications. It is emphasized that while the charge of illegal
gratification was not found proved, the charges relating to
harassment and coercive conduct were established on the basis
of statements recorded during the enquiry.
13. It is further submitted that the acts of the delinquent
employees adversely affected the image of the police
department in the eyes of the general public. In view of these
facts and circumstances, the direction issued by the
disciplinary authority to reappreciate the evidence and submit
a fresh enquiry report was justified and permissible under the
Rules. Hence, it is contended that no illegality or procedural
violation has been committed, and the challenge raised by the
petitioner is devoid of merit.
14. Heard counsel for both the parties at length.
15. Before adverting to the merits of the controversy, it is
apposite to refer to Rule 15 of the M.P. Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which
reads as under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1037
"Rule 15 Action on the inquiry report.
"(1) The disciplinary authority if it is not itself the
inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it
in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for
further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority
shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry
according to the provisions of Rule 14 as far as may be.
(2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees
with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article
of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and
record its own finding on such charge, if the evidence on
record is sufficient for the purpose.
(3) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its
findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the
opinion that any of the penalties specified in [x x x] Rule
10 should be imposed on the Government servants, it
shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 16,
make an order imposing such penalty [but in doing so it
shall record reasons in writing]
Provided that in every case where it is necessary to
consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be
forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the
Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken
into consideration before making any order imposing any
penalty on the Government servant."
16. This Court is of the view that on a perusal of the
aforesaid provisions, it is vivid that the Disciplinary
Authority is empowered to disagree with the findings arrived
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1037
at by the Inquiry Officer and to act upon its own conclusions,
subject to strict compliance with the requirement of recording
reasons for such disagreement. The recording of reasons is
not an empty formality but a mandatory safeguard to ensure
fairness and transparency in disciplinary proceedings. Once
reasons for disagreement are duly recorded, the disciplinary
authority may either proceed to take a decision on the basis of
the material already available on record or, if the
circumstances so warrant, remit the matter to the Inquiry
Officer for further inquiry. In such an event, the Inquiry
Officer is required to conduct the further inquiry strictly in
accordance with Rule 14, as far as may be possible.
17. The scope and ambit of "further inquiry" under Rule
15 have been authoritatively explained by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in K.R. Dev Vs. The Collector of Central
Excise, Shillong, AIR 1971 SC 1447. In the said decision, it
has been held that the Rule contemplates only one inquiry
and that a further inquiry may be directed only in situations
where there has been no proper inquiry due to serious defects,
or where important witnesses were not examined or were
unavailable at the relevant time. It has been categorically laid
down that there is no provision under Rule 15 for completely
setting aside the earlier inquiry merely because the findings
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1037
of the Inquiry Officer do not appeal to the disciplinary
authority. The disciplinary authority is vested with ample
power to reconsider the evidence on record and to arrive at its
own conclusions, but it cannot order a de novo inquiry in the
absence of legally sustainable reasons.
18. The aforesaid legal position has been reiterated by the
Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. M.C. Saxena, (1988)
3 SCC 385, while interpreting provisions analogous to Rule
15 of the Rules, 1966. The same principle has further been
affirmed in National Fertilizers Ltd. and another Vs. P.K.
Khanna, (2005) 7 SCC 597. This Court, through a Division
Bench, has also taken a consistent view in Kamal Kishore
Bansal Vs. M.P.E.B., 1994 (1) MPWN 91, holding that
upon remand, the Inquiry Officer is not permitted to record
fresh evidence or to conduct a de novo inquiry, but must
confine the inquiry strictly to the scope indicated by the
disciplinary authority and decide the matter on the basis of
the material already available on record.
19. In the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions and the
settled legal position enunciated in the above-mentioned
judgments, this Court finds that the action impugned in the
present writ petition is not in conformity with Rule 15 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1037
Rules, 1966, inasmuch as it travels beyond the permissible
limits of "further inquiry" and amounts to an impermissible
reopening of the entire disciplinary proceedings.
Consequently, the impugned action cannot be sustained in the
eyes of law. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The
impugned orders dated 19/07/2023 (Annexure-P/1) and fresh
report dated 03/05/2024 (Annexure P/2) are hereby quashed
and matter is remanded back to the Enquiry Officer to hold
the further Enquiry with no order as to costs.
20. Pending applications, if any, shall be disposed of
accordingly.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
Aiyer*/BL
