[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkumar Sakhwar vs State Of M.P on 24 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10214
1 WP-364-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 24th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 364 of 2012
RAMKUMAR SAKHWAR
Versus
STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D. S. Raghuvanshi, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Shiraz Qureshi, Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the order passed by Commissioner, Chambal Division,
Morena may kindly be modified to the extent that the petitioner is entitled for
subsistence allowance and other remaining pay allowances.
(i-a) That, the order dated 02-05-2011(annexure P/8) & 28-12-
2011(Annexure P/9) be set aside.
(ii) That, the respondents be directed to pay the subsistence allowance
and remaining pay to the petitioner with interest @ 18% pa.
(iii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was working
on the post of Assistant Grade - III in the office of Tahsildar Ambah, District
Morena. On 30.05.2008, petitioner was issued with one order whereby
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10214
2 WP-364-2012
petitioner was placed under suspension. Thereafter, charge-sheet has been
issued to the petitioner on 03.07.2008 and petitioner has denied all the
charges levelled against him and submitted a detailed reply and thereafter by
order dated 23.06.2009, the Collector has revoked the suspension of
petitioner. Thereafter, another order dated 26.10.2009 passed by Collector
after considering the reply of the charge-sheet submitted by petitioner and
charge-sheet whereby subsistence allowance has been allowed to the
petitioner but other allowances for the suspension period has not been
granted(Annexure P-6). Against that, petitioner has submitted an appeal
before Commissioner and Commissioner has allowed the appeal and
remanded the matter back to the Collector. Thereafter, Collector passed order
dated 2/4.5.2011, whereby the penalty of stopping two annual increments
with non cumulative effect has been ordered. Learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that the Collector has not considered the facts and grounds
mentioned in the reply submitted by petitioner and non speaking and
unreasoned order the Collector has imposed punishment of two annual
increments without cumulative effect. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid,
petitioner has preferred appeal and appeal has also been rejected by
Commissioner, Chambal Division by non speaking and unreasoned order
without considering facts and grounds mentioned in the appeal memo.
Counsel for petitioner further submitted that minor punishment has been
imposed by respondents and it is settled position that once minor punishment
has been imposed, salary and other allowances cannot be forfeited and
further submitted that as Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10214
3 WP-364-2012
Authority has not considered facts and grounds mentioned in the
reply/appeal memo. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable.
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
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. 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 2/4-5-2011(Annexure
P-8) is being reproduced herein below:-
'' उ आरोप के संबंध म ी सखवार ारा तुत जवाब दनांक 18 जुलाई 2008 समाधानकारक
नह ं पाया गया है । इस कायालय ारा पा रत आदे श दनांक 26-10-2009 आयु महोदय च बल
संभाग मुरैना के यायालय क अपील मांक 84/2009-10 म पा रत आदे श दनांक 04 मई 2009 से
िनर त कर दे ने से इन पर लगाये गये आरोप के त य तथा ी सखवार ारा तुत उ र म तुत
अं कत त य का गहन पर ण कया गया, गुणदोष पर िन न आदे श पा रत कया जाता है ।
1- ी रामकुमार सखवार दनांक 06 फरवर 2008 से 13-05-2008 तक स म अिधकार क पूव
वीकृ ित बना कत य से अनुप थत रहे , मुख ् य कायपालन अिधकार , जनपद पंचायत पोरसा ारा
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10214
4 WP-364-2012
जब ी सखवार से आवे दत अवकाश जो वयं क बीमार के कारण लाभ ा कर चुके थे, के संबंध
म िच क सक ारा जार िच क सा माण प तुत न करने, उनके साथ अभ यवहार करने के
साथ साथ प दनांक 26-04-2008 ा न करने के दोषी पाये जाते ह । इस संबंध म मु य
कायपालन अिधकार , जला पंचायत मुरैना ने अपने प मांक 13145 दनांक 15-10-2010 से
इनके उपर लगाये गये आरोप क पु क है । अत: ी सखवार, का आदे श दनांक 30-05-2008 से
कया गया िनल बन अ यायोिचत पूण नह ं था। उ कदाचार के िलए इ ह पूव दे य दो वेतनवृ
असंचयी भाव से रोके जाने के द ड से द डत कया जाता है ।
2- ी सखवार के व िनल बन क कायवाह यायोिचत पायी गयी है । िनल बन अविध म
इ ह िनयमानुसार जीवन िनवाह भ ा भुगतान कया गया है । ी सखवार क िनल बन अविध का
िनराकरण ''काय नह ं वेतन नह ं'' के िस ांत पर कया जाता है । तदनुसार िनल बन अविध म ा
जीवन िनवाह भ े के अलावा शेष वेतन भ े ा करने के अिधकार नह ं होगे िनल बन अविध
अ य योजन (पशन तथा सेवाकाल आ द के िलए) सतत सेवा क ण े ी मे मानी जावे।
यह आदे श आज दनांक 02 मई 2011 को पा रत कया गया। अपचार कमचार को सूिचत कया
जावे। आवे दत अवकाश िनयमानुसार वीकृ त कये जाने क कायवाह क जावे। करण समा
कया जाता है ।''
6. From perusal of the punishment order issued by the Disciplinary
Authority dated 2/4-5-2011, 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. On perusal of the punishment order, it does not appear to be a
speaking one.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10214
5 WP-364-2012
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 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10214
6 WP-364-2012
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 decision making 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".
12. 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,
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10214
7 WP-364-2012
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10214
8 WP-364-2012
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10214
9 WP-364-2012
passed by the third respondent. In view of that, the
appellate order has no legs to stand and accordingly is
quashed."
13. In view of the above discussions and the facts and circumstances
of the case, I am left with no choice but to set aside impugned punishment
order dated 2/4-5-2011 and appeal rejection order dated 28.12.2011.
14. Consequently respondents are directed to give all consequential
benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order and as petitioner has already retired and
aged 75 years, therefore, no liberty is granted to the respondents to take
action against the petitioner.
15. With aforesaid observations and directions, preset Writ Petition is
hereby disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
"R"
