Santoshi Lal Batham vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(MP) 849

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ashish Shroti, J.
Santoshi Lal Batham v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
& Others
Writ Petition No. 9543 of 2021 (Gwalior); Decided on 15.10.2025

Advocates Appeared:
M.P.S. Raghuvanshi assisted by Dharmendra Singh Raghuvanshi
for petitioner; Naval Kishore Gupta, Government Advocate
for respondents/State.

Headnote:
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 320(3)(c) -- words “affecting a person” -- necessarily mean “adversely affecting a person” -- only in cases where appellate authority decides to enhance punishment, which adversely affects the civil servant, matter is required to be referred to Public Service Commission again -- where decision of authority is in favour of delinquent, matter is not required to be referred to Commission again by appellate authority. [Paras 13 & 14]
(2) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M.P.) -- Rr. 19 and 27(2)(c)(i) -- Constitution of India -- Art. 320(3)(c) -- M.P. Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1957 -- Reg. 6(2)(a) -- consultation by appellate authority with Public Service Commission -- appellate authority took decision to reduce punishment -- it was not adversely affecting interest of petitioner -- it was not required to refer matter again to Commission for its concurrence. [Paras 14, 16 & 17]
(3) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M.P.) -- R. 19 -- nature of opinion of Public Service Commission -- issue of deciding quantum of punishment is within exclusive domain of disciplinary/appellate authority -- opinion of Public Service Commission is only advisory -- not binding upon authorities. AIR 1962 SC 1130 and (1991) 3 SCC 219 followed. ILR [2017] MP 1840 relied on. [Para 22]
(4) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M.P.) -- R. 19 -- allegation against petitioner was that as OIC of case, he acted negligently in taking steps for filing SLP -- his explanation not appreciated at all by disciplinary authority -- no reason assigned as to why reply was not satisfactory -- appellate authority also did not refer to detailed explanation given by petitioner -- did not consider that after permission was granted by State Government on 4.10.2010, petitioner approached the lawyer at Supreme Court on 10.11.2010, as is evident from receipt filed as Annexure P/3 -- once brief is handed over to lawyer, it was for him to prepare and file SLP -- petitioner could not have been held responsible for the delay after 10.11.2010 -- orders passed by both authorities lacking in necessary consideration of petitioner's explanation and suffer from defect of non-application of mind -- set aside -- since appellate authority was not required to refer matter to Public Service Commission for consultation when it reduced punishment, decision of appellate authority upheld -- punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect substituted by punishment of warning as per decision of appellate authority. (2010) 9 SCC 496 followed. [Paras 24, 25, 27 & 28]
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 320¼3½¼x½ & 'kCn ^^O;fä ij & çHkko Mkyus okys & vko';dr% ^^O;fä ij & çfrdwy çHkko Mkyus okys vfHkçsr & dsoy mu ekeyksa esa ftuesa vihyh; çkf/kdkjh naM cढ+kus dk fofu'p; djrk gS] ftlls flfoy lsod ij çfrdwy çHkko iM+rk gS] ekeyk yksd lsok vk;ksx dks iqu% funsZf'kr fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS & tgk¡ çkf/kdkjh dk fofu'p; vipkjh ds i{k esa gS] vihyh; çkf/kdkjh }kjk ekeyk vk;ksx dks iqu% funsZf'kr fd;k tkuk visf{kr ughaA ¼iSjk 13 ,oa 14½
¼2½ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & fuŒ 19 rFkk 27¼2½¼x½¼1½ & Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 320¼3½¼x½ & eŒçŒ yksd lsok vk;ksx ¼—R;ksa dk ifjlheu½ fofu;e] 1957 & fofuŒ 6¼2½¼d½ & vihyh; çkfèkdkjh }kjk yksd lsok vk;ksx ls ijke'kZ & vihyh; çkf/kdkjh us naM de djus dk fofu'p; fd;k & mlls ;kph dk fgr çfrdwyr% çHkkfor ugha gks jgk Fkk & mlds }kjk ekeyk vk;ksx dks mldh lgefr ds fy, iqu% funsZf'kr fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha FkkA ¼iSjk 14] 16 ,oa 17½
¼3½ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & fuŒ 19 & yksd lsok vk;ksx dh jk; dh ç—fr & naM dk ifjek.k fofuf'pr djus dk fook|d vuq'kklfud@vihyh; çkf/kdkjh ds vuU; vf/kdkj {ks= esa gksrk gS & yksd lsok vk;ksx dh jk; dsoy lykg&Lo:i gksrh gS & çkf/kdkjhx.k ij vkc)dj ughaA ,vkbvkj 1962 ,llh 1130 rFkk ¼1991½ 3 ,llhlh 219 vuqlfjrA vkb,yvkj 2017 ,eih 1840 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 22½
¼4½ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & fuŒ 19 & ;kph ds fo:) vfHkdFku Fkk fd ekeys ds çHkkjh vf/kdkjh ds :i esa mlus fo'ks"k btktr ;kfpdk çLrqr djus ds fy, dne mBkus esa mis{kkiwoZd dk;Z fd;k & mlds Li"Vhdj.k dk vuq'kklfud çkf/kdkjh us fcYdqy ewY;kadu ugha fd;k & bl ckjs esa dksbZ dkj.k ugha fn;k fd mÙkj D;ksa lek/kkuçn ugha Fkk & vihyh; çkf/kdkjh us Hkh ;kph }kjk fn, x, foLr`r Li"Vhdj.k dk mYys[k ugha fd;k & bl ij fopkj ugha fd;k fd jkT; ljdkj }kjk 4-10-2010 dks vuqefr çnku fd, tkus ds mijkar ;kph 10-11-2010 dks mPpre U;k;ky; esa odhy ds ikl x;k] tSlk mikca/k ih@3 ds :i esa çLrqr dh xbZ jlhn ls çR;{k gS & odhy dks i{klkj lkSai fn, tkus ij odhy dks gh fo'ks"k btktr ;kfpdk rS;kj dj ds Qkby djuk Fkh & 10-11-2010 ds mijkar foyac ds fy, ;kph dks mÙkjnk;h ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrk Fkk & nksuksa çkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk ikfjr vkns'kksa esa ;kph ds Li"Vhdj.k ij vko';dr% fopkj fd, tkus dk vHkko rFkk og euksfu;ksx ugha fd, tkus dh =qfV ls xzLr & vikLr fd, x, & naM de fd, tkus ij vihyh; çkf/kdkjh }kjk ijke'kZ ds fy, ekeyk yksd lsok vk;ksx dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha Fkk blfy, vihyh; çkf/kdkjh dk fofu'p; ekU; Bgjk;k x;k & lap;h çHkko ds fcuk nks osruo`f);k¡ jksds tkus dk naM vihyh; çkf/kdkjh ds fofu'p;kuqlkj psrkouh ds naM ls çfrLFkkfirA ¼2010½ 9 ,llhlh 496 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 24] 25] 27 ,oa 28½

ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 3.5.2012 (Annexure P/2), whereby punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect has been inflicted upon him under Rule 19 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966, by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 25.7.2017 (Annexure P/1), whereby the appeal filed by him against the punishment order has been rejected.

2. The petitioner was substantively holding the post of Assistant Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department and at the relevant time he was holding the current charge of the post of Executive Engineer and was posted at Shivpuri. He was appointed as OIC in relation to W.P. No.490/2009 pending before this Court. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 6.4.2010. Thereafter, SLP was filed before apex Court, against the order of this Court, on 15.2.2011 which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

3. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 9.9.2010, whereby it was alleged that the petitioner, being OIC of the aforesaid case, failed to take immediate steps for filing of SLP before the apex Court as a result of which the SLP was dismissed. The petitioner submitted his reply on 15.2.2011 explaining the steps taken by him for purposes of filing the SLP. He claimed that he took all the steps diligently for purposes of filing SLP.

4. The Disciplinary Authority decided to inflict punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect on the petitioner. Vide memo dated 9.2.2012, it sought concurrence of Public Service Commission in the matter. The Public Service Commission accorded its concurrence, to the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority, vide memo dated 21.3.2012. Accordingly, vide impugned order dated 3.5.2012 (Annexure P/2), punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner.

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the punishment order by filing an appeal under rule 23 of CCA Rules before the Governor of M.P. The matter was considered and a decision was taken to reduce the punishment to ‘warning’. The appellate Authority again referred the matter to PSC seeking its concurrence. The PSC however, did not agree with the opinion of the appellate Authority as communicated vide memo dated 20.11.2013. Accordingly, the appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner’s appeal vide impugned order dated 25.7.2017. Challenging the orders passed by Disciplinary as well as appellate Authority, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned orders on the ground that both the authorities failed to consider the defence put forth by the petitioner. He submitted that the permission to file SLP was granted by the State Government on 4.10.2010 and immediately, thereafter he instructed the Supreme Court lawyer on 10.11.2012 to file SLP. It is his case that he was continuously following up the matter with the Supreme Court lawyer and ultimately SLP was filed on 15.2.2011. He thus submitted that the petitioner acted diligently and took all possible steps for challenging the order before the apex Court. The learned senior counsel also submitted that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as also by the appellate Authority is completely nonspeaking inasmuch as both the orders do not discuss petitioner’s explanation and assign any reason for finding the explanation unsatisfactory. He also submitted that the appellate Authority though took a decision to reduce the punishment but blindly accepted the disagreement of the PSC and dismissed the appeal. It is his submission that opinion of the PSC is not binding upon the appellate Authority as has been held by this Court in the case of S.K. Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in ILR