[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajeev Shrivastava vs The State Of M.P. on 16 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2047
1 WP-3346-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3346 of 2011
RAJEEV SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Veyankatesh Bodhoriya - learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - learned Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"(1) That, orders dated 20-07-10, 02-02-11 and 04-06-
07 contained in annexure -1, P-2 and P-3 may kindly be
quashed/set-aside.
(2) That, the respondents' authorities may kindly be
directed to reinstate the petitioner in service to the post
of Asst. Grade III with back wages.
(3) That, any other suitable further orders may kindly be
passed in the interest of justice. Costmay kindly be
awarded."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was posted as
Lower Division Clerk( Assistant Grade-III) in the office of Regional
Transport Office, Guna in the year 2001 to 2004. Thereafter one Sanjeev
Sharma and other were submitted the complaints to the Collector Guna
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2047
2 WP-3346-2011
regarding registration of vehicles on the basis of false sale letters and no
objection certificates at the RTO Guna and the Collector prima facie found
that Shri D.S. Tomar (then Addl. RTO Guna), Shri A.B. Shrivastav (then
Asst. Superintendent), Shri Jageshwar Shrivastava (Asst. Grade III_ and
Rajeev Shrivastva petitioner were guilty. Thereafter, Collector Guna issued
a letter dated 7.9.2001 to the Transport Commissioner of M.P. to proceed
against above named erring Officer or employees. Thereafter, the petitioner
was suspended by order dated 01.02.2001 and a charge-sheet was issued
levelling four charges against him. Petitioner submitted the reply to the
charge sheet. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer was appointed and Inquiry Officer
conducted the departmental inquiry. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued a
show cause notice dated 4.5.2007. Petitioner submitted detailed reply dated
15.6.2007 consisting of 10 pages in which various facts and grounds
mentioned. However, without considering the said reply, the Transport
Commissioner had issued the termination order against petitioner and
recovery of Rs.29,02,704/- was directed to be recovered from the petitioner.
It is further submitted that without considering the facts and grounds
mentioned in the reply, disciplinary authority passed the order dated 4.6.2007
(annexure P/3) by imposing the major punishment upon petitioner which is
non-speaking and unreasoned. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal
memo (Annexure P/20), in which various facts and grounds were mentioned
running in 11 pages; however, without considering the facts and grounds
mentioned in the appeal memo, the appellate authority, by order dated
20.07.2010 (Annexure P/2), rejected the appeal. The appeal rejection order is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2047
3 WP-3346-2011
also non-speaking and unreasoned order. Thereafter, petitioner preferred
review petition and the same was also rejected by passing a non-speaking
and unreasoned order dated 10.2.2011.
Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that without
considering the detailed reply submitted by petitioner and without dealing
with the facts and grounds raised by petitioner non-speaking and unreasoned
punishment order dated 4-6-2007 (Annexure P/3) has been issued by
Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that
as the respondents/Disciplinary Authority has not assigned reasons for
rejecting the petitioner's reply is contrary to judgment reported in M/S Kranti
Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors reported in (2010) 9
SCC 496. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thereafter
petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was also rejected by impugned
order dated 20.7.2010 (Annexure P/2).
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2047
4 WP-3346-2011
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.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent/State that
during the enquiry, ample opportunity was provided to the petitioner;
however, he himself did not cross-examine any witness and also did not file
any application in this regard. The petitioner also did not file any application
with respect to the supply of material or documents. It is further submitted
that all the authorities found petitioner guilty and accordingly, he was
removed from service, and consequently, recovery was ordered from his
movable/immovable property. Learned State Counsel has relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of
India and Others v. Ramadhar Sao [decided on 20.08.2025 in S.L.P. (C) No.
6722 of 2023], the relevant paragraph of which is quoted below:
13.1 Law on the issue, that disciplinary authority is not required to
record reason in detail if report of inquiry officer, is accepted.
Reference can be made to judgment of this Court in Boloram
Bordoloi's case (supra). Relevant para thereof is extracted below:
11. ... it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority
accepts the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and
passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be
recorded in the order imposing punishment. The
punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded
in the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate
reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary
authority. As the departmental appeal was considered
by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 10-12-
2005, the Board's decision is communicated vide order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2047
5 WP-3346-2011
dated 21-12-2005 in Ref. No.
LGB/I&V/Appeal/31/02/2005-06. In that view of the
matter, we do not find any merit in the submission of
the learned counsel for the appellant that the orders
impugned are devoid of reasons."
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 punishment order dated 04.6.2007 (Annexure
P/3) is quoted below for ready reference and convenience:-
" ी ीवा तव ारा तुत प ीकरण, अिभलेख के
अवलोकन, जांच ितवेदन तथा मु यालय पर क गई
समी ा के िन कष के म े नजर सभी आरोप मा णत पाए
गए ह,
अतएव एत ारा ी राजीव ीवा तव त कालीन
सहायक वग-तीन अित र े ीय प रवहन कायालय गुना
वतमान म प रवहन आयु कायालय म य दे श वािलयर
को म-. .िस वल सेवा (वग करण,िनयं ण तथा
अपील)िनयम, 1966 के िनयम 14 के सहप ठत उपरो
िनयम 10 (आठ )के अंतगत सेवा से पृथक कया जाता है
एवं शासक य धन क हािन पये 29,02,704 /-दे य व वो
एवं चल/अचल संप से वसूल करने आदे श दए जाते ह। "
6. From perusal of the punishment order issued by the Disciplinary
Authority dated 4.6.2007 (Annexure P/3), it is clear that the Disciplinary
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. Important part of appeal rejection order dated 20.7.2010 (Annexure
P/2) is quoted herein below:
प रवहन आयु , म० ०, वािलयर के आदे श . 732/ बजां/ट ती/2007/,
दनांक 04.6.2007 ारा पा रत द डादे श के व आपके ारा शासन को
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2047
6 WP-3346-2011
तुत अपील दनांक 01.8.2007 को सुनवाई समय म सिचव,
म० ०शासन, प रवहन वभाग ारा दनांक 31.05.2010 को क गई।
2/- आपके ारा वयं को दोषमु करने से संबंिधत कोई भी मा णत
त य तुत नह ं कया गया है । अत: आपके ारा तुत अपील को
पर णोपरांत अमा य कया जाता है ।
8. From perusal of the appeal rejection order dated 20.7.2010 issued
by Appellate Authority, 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 Appellate 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.
9. On perusal of the punishment order, it does not appear to be a
speaking one.
10. 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.
11. 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. In the said decision it had been held by the Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2047
7 WP-3346-2011
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.
12. 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.
13. 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:2047
8 WP-3346-2011
"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".
14. 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, even
the appellate order is also non-speaking and unreasoned 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2047
9 WP-3346-2011
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2047
10 WP-3346-2011
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 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."
15. In view of the above discussion and the facts and circumstances of
the case, I am left with no choice but to set aside impugned punishment order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2047
11 WP-3346-2011
dated 4.6.2007 (Annexure P/3), appeal rejection order dated 20.07.2010
(Annexue P/2) and review order dated 2.2.2011 (Annexure P/1), and
accordingly I do so.
16. Consequently respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner
and to give all consequential benefits except back wages on the principle of
no work no pay to petitioner within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order. The matter is remitted to the
Disciplinary Authority to proceed in accordance with law after considering
the facts and grounds mentioned in the reply.
17. With aforesaid observations and directions, preset Writ Petition is
hereby disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Ahmad
