[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Prasad Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1850
1 WP-18425-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 15th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 18425 of 2017
VINOD PRASAD GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shashank Indapurkar - learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Rajendra Jain - learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):
" (i) That the impugned punishment order dt.26.9.2017
(Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3 so also the
consequential transfer order with regard to the transfer of the petitioner
and also the charge sheet (Annexure P/6) may kindly be quashed.
(ii) That it be declared that the respondent No.3 has no legal
authority to issue the charge sheet as well as the punishment order.
(ii) That any other relief to which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit may also be directed to be extended in favour of the
petitioner in the interest of justice. Costs of this petition be also
awarded in favour of the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially
appointed on the post of Lab Assistant by the Joint Director of Education on
9.1.1983. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of UDT vide
order dated 18.4.2016 passed by the District Education Officer and was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1850
2 WP-18425-2017
thereafter posted at Government Middle School, Doulsa, Block Morena. It is
further submitted that as per the Madhya Pradesh Non-Gazetted Class III
Education Services (Non-Collegiate) Recruitment and Promotion Rules,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1973), the competent authority
or appointing authority of petitioner is the Joint Director of Education
(Annexure P/4). It is further submitted that petitioner suddenly fell ill on
6.12.2016; therefore, he immediately submitted an application for grant of
medical leave. On 10.12.2016, an inspection was conducted by respondent
No.2, the District Project Officer and it was found that petitioner was on
medical leave; therefore, there was no question of his appearing and signing
the attendance register. On the basis of said inspection, a show-cause notice
was issued on 14.12.2016 by respondent No.3. Thereafter, petitioner
immediately submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice on
21.12.2016. Subsequently, on 16.5.2017, petitioner was suspended by the
Chief Executive Officer and a charge sheet was issued to him. The petitioner
immediately submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 12.6.2017 along with
relevant documents. It is further submitted that without considering the facts
and grounds mentioned in the reply dated 12.6.2017 (Annexure P/9) and
without conducting a regular departmental inquiry, the punishment order of
withholding one increment without cumulative effect was passed by
competent authority, which is a non-speaking and unreasoned order.
3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate for respondents/State 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1850
3 WP-18425-2017
4. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
5. Before moving ahead, it would be apt to quote impugned order dated
26.9.2017 for ready reference and convenience:
तदप
ु रा त ी वनोद साद गु ा को कायालयीन प मांक/एस.एस.ए. आई.ई.ड .
/877 मुरैना दनांक 16.05.2017 को ारा ापन, आरोप प , आधार प जार कए
गए।
ी वनोद साद गु ा, िश क मा. व.दौलसा ारा तुत आरोप प एवं आधार प
का जवाब पर णोपरा त एक वेतन वृ अंसचयी भाव से रोक कर शा.मा. व.
जीगनी, वकास ख ड मुरैना पर बहाल कया जाता है तथा िनलंबन अविध सम त
व व के िलए कत या ढ़ मा य क जाती है ।
6. P erusal of impugned order reveals that without considering the detailed
reply (Annexure P/9) dated 12.6.2017 along with relevant documents, it has
been passed by Chief Executive Officer which is non-speaking and
unreasoned.
7. From perusal of the punishment order issued by respondent No.3 dated
26.9.2017 it is clear that respondent No.3 while passing the order imposing
punishment upon petitioner is exercising quasi judicial powers and even the
quasi judicial order must be speaking one. Respondent No.3 must 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. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1850
4 WP-18425-2017
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 be speaking one. The affected party must know how his/her 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 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.
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" 31.
11. Also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1850
5 WP-18425-2017
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:-
"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 2 . As respondent No.3 has issued a non-speaking and unreasoned order,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1850
6 WP-18425-2017
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1850
7 WP-18425-2017
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 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:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1850
8 WP-18425-2017
"......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. 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."
14. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1850
9 WP-18425-2017
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. The charges are factual and
they are denied by the delinquent/petitioner, an enquiry should also be called
for and as there is no enquiry regular departmental enquiry has been
conducted before awarding the minor punishment.
15. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned
order dated 26.9.2017 (annexure P/1) is 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.
16. With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.
17. Pending interlocutory applications (if any) are disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Ahmad
