[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shriniwas Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8605
1 WP-4937-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 4937 of 2016
SHRINIWAS SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms.Yashika Upadhyay - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Shiraz Qureshi - Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
''1. The order impugned dated 02.02.2016 passed by
respondent No. 2 (Annexure P/1) may kindly be quashed and
consequently the order of Collector/respondent No. 3 dated
7th of July 2015 (Annexure P/2) may also kindly be quashed
along with all consequential benefits.
2. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to
the petitioner.
3. Cost of this petition be also awarded to the petitioner.''
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the relevant
point of time, the petitioner was posted as a Headmaster in Government
Primary School, Jatwar Ka Pura, Tehsil & District Morena, M.P. and a
charge-sheet has been filed alleging that in a pending criminal case before
the Court, the petitioner did not support the prosecution and investigation.
Thereafter, the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8605
2 WP-4937-2016
after conducting the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his
report before the disciplinary authority and the Enquiry Officer has partly
proved the charges against the petitioner. It is further submitted that
thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued a show-cause notice dated
04.03.2015 and the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 24.06.2015 to
the show-cause notice and submitted that without considering the reply, the
non-speaking and unreasoned punishment order has been issued by the
respondents. In reply, the petitioner has already stated that as the petitioner is
not a local resident of village Ghadore, Tehsil Jaura, District Morena, the
petitioner could not properly identify the accused and on the basis of
hearsay, the names of the accused persons were given and the petitioner has
categorically denied the fact that he has deliberately favoured the accused
persons in not identifying them. It is further contended that the aforesaid
aspects have not been dealt with by the disciplinary authority at all and by a
non-speaking and unreasoned order, punishment of withholding two annual
increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner and
it is submitted that the aforesaid aspects have not been considered by the
Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority has also rejected the appeal
vide order dated 02.02.2016. Hence, this petition.
3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer made
by counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned order. It is further
submitted that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice, the
disciplinary authority has imposed the minor punishment against the
petitioner and the Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the appeal of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8605
3 WP-4937-2016
petitioner. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition.
4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on
record.
5. Before moving ahead, it would be apt to quote the impugned order
dated 07.07.2015 for ready reference and convenience:-
''पुिलस अधी क मुरैना ारा भी तुत ितवेदन म इं िगत
कया है क उ िश क के असहयोग के कारण पुिलस ववेचना
ठ क तरह नह ं हो सक एवं यायालय म भी इनके असहयोग के
कारण करण म अिभयु गण वर हो गये।
वभागीय जांच अिधकार ारा अपचार कमचार को
आंिशक प से दोषी पाया गया है ।
अतः करण म तुत ितवेदन, अिभलेख एवं अपचार
कमचार ारा तुत जवाब का पर ण एवं प रशीलन करने के
यह िन कष िनकलता है क अपचार कमचार ने िनवाचन जैसे
प व अिभयान म यवधान डाल रहे अिभयु को न पहचान कर
तथा पुिलस का अिभयोजन म सहयोग न कर लापरवाह क तथा
वे कत य के ित दोषी पाये गये है । म० ०िस वल सेवा (वग करण
िनयं ण एवं अपील) िनयम 1966 के िनयम 10 (4) के अ तगत
उनके व 2 (दो) वा षक वेतन वृ अंसचयी भाव से रोके जाने
के द ड अिधरो पत कया जाता है । उ अविध सेवा अविध के िलये
मा य क जाती है । करण समा होकर दा खल रकाड ह ।''
6. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that without considering the
detailed reply (Annexure P/5) dated 24.06.2015, the non-speaking and
unreasoned order has been passed by the Collector, Morena.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8605
4 WP-4937-2016
7. From perusal of the punishment order issued by the Disciplinary
Authority dated 07.07.2015, it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority, while
passing the order imposing punishment upon the petitioner, is exercising
quasi-judicial powers and even the quasi-judicial order must be a speaking
one. The Disciplinary 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. 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 a reasonable and rational manner. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a 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 be a 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8605
5 WP-4937-2016
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"
11. Also, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v. 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 Hon'ble 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8605
6 WP-4937-2016
(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".
12. A s the disciplinary authority has issued a non-speaking and
unreasoned order, therefore, the absence of reasons in the punishment order
cannot be compensated by disclosure of reasons in the appellate order;
therefore, the argument of counsel for respondent is not sustainable that the
appellate order is a 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8605
7 WP-4937-2016
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8605
8 WP-4937-2016
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. 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. This is the minimum requirement of the
principles of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed
with. As the disciplinary authority issued a non-speaking and unreasoned
order, the absence of reason in the punishment order cannot be compensated
by the disclosure of reason in the appellate order. Furthermore, since the
charges are factual and were denied by the petitioner, a regular departmental
enquiry should have been conducted before awarding the punishment.
14. After considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the
parties and upon perusal of documents available on record, this Court finds
that the petitioner, while serving as a Headmaster at Government Primary
School, Jatwar Ka Pura, District Morena, was subjected to a departmental
enquiry for allegedly failing to support the prosecution in a criminal case.
Despite the Enquiry Officer only partially proving the charges and the
petitioner submitting a detailed reply dated 24.06.2015 to the show-cause
notice, wherein he explained that his inability to identify the accused
stemmed from his status as a non-resident rather than a deliberate attempt to
favor them, the disciplinary authority proceeded to pass a non-speaking and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8605
9 WP-4937-2016
unreasoned order. The disciplinary authority failed to address the specific
grounds raised by the petitioner and imposed the punishment of withholding
two annual increments with cumulative effect without due consideration of
his explanation, a deficiency subsequently overlooked by the Appellate
Authority in its order dated 02.02.2016. This Court is of the opinion that the
impugned orders suffer from a manifest lack of application of mind;
accordingly, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed, and
the impugned orders of punishment and appeal are hereby set aside. The
respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order.
15. With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.
16. Pending interlocutory applications (if any) are disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
*VJ*
