Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 361
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Sanjeev Sachdeva, ACJ., Vinay Saraf, J.
Nand Kishore Choudhary – Petitioner
Versus
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 28403 of 2022
Decided On : 19-06-2025
For the Petitioner: Shri Saket Agrawal, learned counsel
For the Respondent: Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel
Judicial review under Article 226 is limited to assessing the procedural compliance and natural justice in disciplinary actions, not the re-evaluation of evidence or the findings unless deemed perverse.
Headnote:(A) Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 - Rule 23 - Disciplinary proceedings - Modification of penalty on appeal examined - Original penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect modified to withholding without cumulative effect - Procedural correctness of inquiry not challenged, sufficient evidence supported the findings - Evaluation of misconduct upheld. (Paras 6, 18)
(B) Judicial Review - Limits of interference - High Court’s scope under Article 226 is limited to procedural compliance and natural justice principles, not to reassess evidence or findings unless perverse. (Paras 11, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Process Writer, was penalized for not supplying court information timely in the correct format. The inquiry determined the petitioner failed to follow repeated directives from the District Judge.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the inquiry findings showing misconduct and found the penalty of withholding increments without cumulative effect to be just and proper given the circumstances.
Issues: Whether the evidence supported charges of misconduct and the proportionality of the penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that inquiry findings supported by evidence cannot be overturned absent procedural flaws or a lack of natural justice; the authority’s conclusions were consistent with evidence presented.
Result: Petition dismissed, penalty modification upheld.
ORDER :
Vinay Saraf, J.
1. By the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the High Court of M.P., whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Rule 23 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, 'the Rules 1966') was partly allowed and the penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect inflicted by order dated 01.06.2018 passed by the disciplinary authority in departmental enquiry was modified to the extent that the increment has been withheld without cumulative effect.
2. With the consent of parties, the arguments are heard for the purposes of final disposal of the petition.
3. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Process Writer and transferred to the Court of Smt. Sonal Chourasia, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deosar, District Singrauli as Executant Clerk by order dated 28.03.2016. When the petitioner joined the duties on 29.03.2016, the Presiding Officer was on maternity leave. The letter dated 22.06.2016 was received in the Court by which the direction was issued to submit the quarterly information in respect of the pending cases pertaining to crimes against the women, children, handicapped and people belonging to weaker section of the society for the period of 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2016. After receipt of the letter, the petitioner collected all the relevant information and forwarded the information to the office of District Judge, Singrauli on 02.07.2016. As per petitioner, the petitioner came to know regarding the requirements to forward the said information again in Format B on 05.07.2016, however the petitioner was not having any knowledge regarding the said format, he sought information on telephone and later on with the help of colleagues arranged the format and prepared the information for the purpose of forwarding to the office of District Judge, Singrauli. The Presiding Officer was on leave therefore, he obtained the approval and signatures of In-charge Judicial Officer and thereafter forwarded the information through E-mail and WhatsApp as well as by physically. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension upon the allegation that information which was sought by High Court for the purpose of utilizing in the Chief Justice's Conference by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, was not forwarded by the petitioner timely.
4. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and the departmental enquiry was initiated. The enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and after securing the reply from the petitioner recorded the statements of witnesses on behalf of the department as well as the defense and prepared the enquiry report and submitted the same before the disciplinary authority. After serving the enquiry report to the petitioner and securing his reply, by order dated 01.06.2018 the disciplinary authority i.e. District & Sessions Judge, District Singrauli held the petitioner guilty and passed the impugned order inflicting the penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect.
5. The order of punishment was challenged by the petitioner in appeal preferred before the High Court, which was partly allowed and the penalty imposed on the petitioner was modified to the extent of stoppage of two yearly increments without any cumulative effect. The aforesaid orders have been put to challenge in the present petition by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner for not supplying information in proper format within time do not make out a case of misconduct under the Rules, 1966 and the same may be considered at the most negligence. He further submits that department has failed to prove the allegation against the petitioner in the enquiry and the petitioner has forwarded information in Format B at the earliest and therefore, he has not committe
