Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 254
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VIVEK JAIN, J.
John Abraham – Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director And Others – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 20059 of 2020
Decided On : 19-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri Navin Dubey
For the Respondent: Shri Satyam Agrawal
Disciplinary charges that are based on historical conduct and are issued after a significant delay, without evidence of misconduct, cannot be upheld, affirming the principles of fairness and settled employment expectations.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Charge Sheet - The charge sheet issued to the petitioner after a delay of 35 years was quashed as the charges did not constitute misconduct and were based on actions known to the employer for decades. It was concluded that settled qualifications could not be questioned after a long period, especially in absence of any fraud or suppression. (Paras 8, 12, 19)
(B) Judicial Review - The court highlighted that interference in charge sheets must be warranted; however, there is no prohibition against quashing if no misconduct is disclosed, particularly under circumstances of delay. (Paras 24, 25)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner's challenges the validity of a charge sheet issued by the corporation, alleging malice and a delay of 35 years without disclosure of new misconduct. The petitioner claimed improper qualifications were accepted initially and contended that he had been wronged for raising legitimate workplace grievances. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the charges were based on historical actions well known to the employer, and thus, could not be suddenly contested after decades. Moreover, the charges were either unrelated to any current misconduct or lacked evidence of wrongful gain. (Paras 18, 23)
Issues: The main issues included whether the significant delay invalidates the charges and whether the charges indeed constituted misconduct. (Paras 8, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that the acceptance of qualifications by the employer over a long period cannot be revisited without evidence of malfeasance, emphasizing that disciplinary proceedings must respect fundamental fairness. (Paras 12, 14)
Result: The petition is allowed; the charge sheet is quashed in its entirety.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges malice-driven charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondent's argument on premature charge challenge. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. delay in charges results in quashing. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. analysis of misconduct related to duties. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. refusal of work cannot be misconduct. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. totality of charges quashed. (Para 25) |
ORDER :
The present petition has been filed challenging the charge sheet Annexure P-1 dated 14.12.2020 issued to the petitioner therein as many as 5 charges against the petitioner, who is working on the post of Manager in Marketing Department of respondent – M.P. Laghu Udyog Ltd., a public sector corporation owned and run by the Government of M.P.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges as levelled on the petitioner by the impugned charge sheet Annexure P-1 are actuated by malice and that the charges are not made out. It is contended that the charges relate to 35 years prior to the date of issuance of charges as the same relate to some events happening at the time of appointment of the petitioner. It is further contended that is it only when petitioner raised the grievance of grant of time scale etc. that the officials unleashed vendetta against the petitioner so that the voice of the petitioner can be suppressed. It is further argued that the charges so alleged do not constitute any misconduct even if they are true on the very face of it, because these charges do not disclose any misconduct.
3. It is further contended that though there are disputes going on in the matter of voluntary retirement of the petitioner, but it is undisputed that now the petitioner has even crossed the age of superannuation and is now not in service of the Corporation.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – Corporation has argued that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the charge sheet, because challenge to the charge sheet is premature because the allegations made in the charge sheet are only allegations, which are yet to be proved and petition against mere charge sheet is not maintainable as it is open for him to controvert the charges by adducing evidence. Reference is made to various judgments on the issue that interference by the Court should not be easily made against mere charge sheet and that the petition should be dismissed and the petitioner should be asked to face the charges and put forth all the defences during the course of enquiry.
5. Heard.
6. The charge sheet which has been issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P-1 dated 14.12.2020 contains 5 charges.
First charge related to allegation that the petitioner applied for appointment as Stenographer in the Corporation on 19.11.1985 and did not have the required qualification from concerned Board at Madhya Pradesh, but had some qualifications from Kerala State Board, which was not acceptable and therefore, he was appointed without having requisite qualification.
Second charge related to allegation that the requisite selection process was not followed while appointing the petitioner despite that he accepted the appointment.
Third charge related to allegation that the petitioner did not submit the documents relating to the essential educational qualifications and obtained relaxation from the authorities of Corporation, which amounts to misconduct.
Fourth charge alleged that the petitioner was granted promotion without being qualified for the same, which amounts to misconduct.
Fifth charge was that he was posted as Manager Marketing on 08.07.2020 and by submitting letter dated 04.09.2020 in the office he refused to deal with UPEC pipes and all other similar pipes, which have filed various clause by noting that he cannot understand price variation clause perfectly, which amounts to refusal to perform the duties assigned to him.
7. So far as the charge Nos.1 to 4 are concerned, these charges relate to some events happening at the time of appointm
