Harikrishan Bhargava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026

                          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8588


                                                                1                    WP. No. 7036 of 2013

                             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. 7036 of 2013

                                              HARIKRISHAN BHARGAVA
                                                      Versus
                                     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS


                          Appearance:
                          Ms. Preeti Kushwah - learned counsel for the petitioner.
                          Shri Shiraz Qureshi - learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

                                                              ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

"(i) That , the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ petition;

(ii) That, the impugned order dated 18.3.2011 Annexure P/1 passed by the respondent No.4 may kindly be directed to be quashed.

(iii) That, the order Annexure P/2 dated 2.11.2012 passed by the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to be quashed.

(iii) That any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner.

Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8588

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 31.7.1986. On 22.12.2004, petitioner was sent as Crystal Academic Coordinator (CAC) at Jan Shiksha Kendra Kararkheda, Block Pichhore. On 9.6.2010, the Commissioner, Education Department issued a letter directing petitioner to take steps for providing school uniforms to girl students. As per Clause 8 of Annexure P/3, a Committee was constituted at the district level wherein an Officer Incharge was to be appointed by the State Government along with the District Education Officer and the District Project Coordinator, and the members of the Parents Teachers Association were also included in the said Committee. The Committee decided to provide school uniforms and issued an order dated 4.9.2010. The said order was issued under the signatures of the President and the Secretary of the Parents Teachers Association. It was also required to verify and certify that the cloth/uniforms were to be purchased from approved stores. The aforesaid store had already been verified by the Deputy Director, Public Instruction, Gwalior and the Divisional OIC, as reflected in Annexure P/5. It is further submitted that petitioner had no concern with the entire process. However, without considering the aforesaid aspects and without issuing any show-cause notice to petitioner, the impugned punishment order dated 18.3.2011 was issued. It is further submitted that in the punishment order it has been mentioned that a show-cause notice dated 21.2.2011 was served upon the petitioner but no such notice was ever served. After receiving the impugned order, petitioner immediately submitted a representation dated 23.3.2012 wherein in Para-3 it is specifically stated that no show-cause notice had been given to him. Thus, without giving any opportunity of being heard, the impugned punishment order was passed by which the penalty of withholding one annual

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8588

increment was imposed upon petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has specifically pleaded in Para-5.2 that no notice was received or served upon him and no opportunity of hearing was provided and therefore the impugned order dated 21.2.2011 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority but the appellate authority also failed to consider the aforesaid aspect and rejected the appeal by passing a non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 2.11.2012. It is further submitted that in the grounds of the petition, in Para-C, the petitioner again pleaded that no show-cause notice was ever served upon him before imposing the punishment. In the reply filed by the respondents, they have stated that the contents mentioned in Para-5.2 are not disputed which clearly shows that the respondents themselves have admitted that no show-cause notice was ever served upon the petitioner. It is further submitted that if there was any lapse in purchasing the uniforms, the sole responsibility lies with the Parents Teachers Association and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State submits that irregularities were committed by petitioner; therefore, a notice dated 21.2.2011 (Annexure R/1) was issued. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the said notice reveals that the allegation levelled against petitioner was that while distributing uniforms to the girl students, the petitioner did not ensure the quality of the uniforms and the uniforms supplied were below standard. It is further submitted that after issuance of the notice, petitioner submitted his reply and the District Project Coordinator prepared a list of those schools where below-standard uniforms had been supplied (Annexure R/2). It is further submitted that as the reply submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, the disciplinary

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8588

authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Perusal of record reveals that petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 31.7.1986. On 22.12.2004, petitioner was sent as Crystal Academic Coordinator (CAC) at Jan Shiksha Kendra Kararkheda, Block Pichhore. On 9.6.2010, the Commissioner, Education Department issued a letter directing petitioner to take steps for providing school uniforms to girl students. As per Clause 8 of Annexure P/3, a Committee was constituted at the district level wherein an Officer Incharge was to be appointed by the State Government along with the District Education Officer and the District Project Coordinator, and the members of the Parents Teachers Association were also included in the said Committee. The Committee decided to provide school uniforms and issued an order dated 4.9.2010. The said order was issued under the signatures of the President and the Secretary of the Parents Teachers Association. It was also required to verify and certify that the cloth/uniforms were to be purchased from approved stores. The aforesaid store had already been verified by the Deputy Director, Public Instruction, Gwalior and the Divisional OIC, as reflected in Annexure P/5. Petitioner had no concern with the entire process. However, without considering the aforesaid aspects and without issuing any show-cause notice to petitioner, the impugned punishment order dated 18.3.2011 was issued. In the punishment order it has been mentioned that a show-cause notice dated 21.2.2011 was served upon the petitioner but no such notice was ever served. After receiving the impugned order, petitioner immediately submitted a representation dated 23.3.2012 wherein in Para-3 it is specifically stated that no

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8588

show-cause notice had been given to him. Thus, without giving any opportunity of being heard, the impugned punishment order was passed by which the penalty of withholding one annual increment was imposed upon petitioner. Petitioner has specifically pleaded in Para-5.2 that no notice was received or served upon him and no opportunity of hearing was provided and therefore the impugned order dated 21.2.2011 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority but the appellate authority also failed to consider the aforesaid aspect and rejected the appeal by passing a non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 2.11.2012. In the grounds of the petition, in Para-C, petitioner again pleaded that no show-cause notice was ever served upon him before imposing the punishment. In the reply filed by the respondents, they have stated that the contents mentioned in Para-5.2 are not disputed which clearly shows that the respondents themselves have admitted that no show-cause notice was ever served upon the petitioner. If there was any lapse in purchasing the uniforms, the sole responsibility lies with the Parents Teachers Association and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same.

6. Despite the specific pleading raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Para-5.2 and Para-C of the grounds, the same has not been denied by the respondents in their reply. On the contrary, the respondents have mentioned incorrect facts stating that after issuing the notice, petitioner submitted his reply, and further wrongly stated that the reply was not satisfactory and therefore, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment. The relevant paragraph of the reply is quoted below:

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8588

"That, from bare perusal of the aforesaid notice, it reveals that allegations leveled against the petitioner that while distributing the uniform, to the girls students, petitioner has not taken care of that uniform supplied, was of below standard. After issuing notice, petitioner submitted his reply.

It is pertinent to mention here that, District Project Coordinator, has prepared list of those schools in which below standard uniform has been supplied. Copy of the aforesaid list is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure R/2. Thereafter, as reply is not satisfactory and therefore disciplinary authority has imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. It is respectfully submitted that aforesaid order has been issued by the competent authority. Against the aforesaid order, initially a petitioner has preferred a writ petition No.3667/12 but this Hon'ble court has not interfered with the matter and directed petitioner to prefer appeal before the appellate authority. After filing appeal, comments were sought by the and Commissioner, Rajya Shiksha Kendra aforesaid comments has been sent by the District Project Coordinator on 25-9- 2012, and thereafter, appeal preferred by the petitioner has rightly been dismissed vide order dated 2-11-2012 Annexure P/2, and thus both the authority has concurrently found that petitioner is negligent and taking lenient view only punishment has been imposed with respect to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, hence scope of judicial review is very limited, and thus petition as

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8588

filed by the petitioner is devoid of substance and is wholly misconceived, baseless deserves to be dismissed."

7. A copy of the reply has not been submitted by the respondents. There is a specific pleading that the show-cause notice was never served upon the petitioner and therefore, petitioner could not submit any reply. Despite the aforesaid fact, incorrect statements have been made in the reply supported by an affidavit. The respondents have failed to show that any reply was filed by the petitioner. Even in the representation dated 23.3.2012, in Para-3, the petitioner specifically stated that no notice had ever been served upon him. This fact has also not been considered by the appellate authority. In Para-3 of the appeal memo, the petitioner again specifically stated that the show-cause notice dated 21.2.2011 was not served upon him. The appellate authority also failed to consider the aforesaid aspect and passed an unreasoned and non-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 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.

9. 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 Supreme Court that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8588

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"

11. 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 subparagraphs of the said summary are quoted as under:-

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8588

"47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:

(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 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.

(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.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8588

(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 Harvard Law Review 731-37].)

(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 andwas considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, 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".

(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"."

12. 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8588

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).

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8588

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 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."

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8588

13. Considering the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of in the following terms:

(i) The impugned punishment order dated 18.3.2011 is hereby quashed and the appeal rejection order dated 2.11.2012 is also set aside.

(ii) Since incorrect facts have been stated in the reply supported by an affidavit and the petitioner has been harassed by the respondents, this is a fit case to impose costs of Rs.50,000/- upon the respondents, which shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner.

(iii) The respondents are further directed to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- in the account of Nagar Nigam, Gwalior (Swachhata Penalty Evam Garbage) bearing Account No. 4051626318 of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Branch Gwalior (IFSC Code: KKBK0005927).

(iv) However, the respondents shall be at liberty to recover the aforesaid amount of Rs.75,000/- from the erring officer after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned erring officer in accordance with law.

14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.

(Anand Singh Bahrawat) Judge Ahmad