2025 Supreme(MP) 898

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
ASHISH SHROTI, J.
Devendra Sharma – Petitioner 
Versus 
State Of M.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 272 of 2025 
Decided On : 24-12-2025

Headnote:

(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- quashing of charge-sheet on ground of delay -- charge-sheet cannot be quashed solely on ground of delay -- Court is required to take into account all relevant facts including gravity of charges -- Court is required to balance and weigh circumstances to determine if termination of proceedings on ground of delay is in interest of clean and honest administration -- proceedings can be quashed on ground of delay only when delinquent can establish prejudice caused to him because of lapse of time. 1999 SCC (L&S) 646, LIC (2013) 6 SCC 530 and (2025) 8 SCC 696 followed. [Para 12]

(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- quashing of charge-sheet on ground of delay -- allegation of availing medical reimbursement on basis of forged and fabricated medical bills during period between 2010-11 and 2014-15 -- allegation serious and based upon documentary evidence -- there is total defalcation of Rs. 9,64,257/- -- not only is public money at stake, but integrity and honesty of delinquent is also to be enquired into -- not in interest of clean and honest administration to quash charge-sheet at this stage merely on ground of delay. Writ Petition No. 12170 of 2021, Writ Petition No. 16471 of 2017 and Writ Petition No. 4145 of 2015 distinguished. 1990 Supp. SCC 738, (1998) 4 SCC 154 and (2006)5 SCC 88 discussed. (2013) 6 SCC 530 referred to. [Paras 14 to 17]

(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 -- R. 16 -- show cause notice under R. 16(1)(a) issued asking petitioner to give reply, failing which, proceedings for placing him under suspension and initiating disciplinary proceedings shall be initiated -- held -- disciplinary proceedings were not actually initiated by this show cause notice but were only proposed to be initiated -- it cannot be said that minor penalty proceedings were initiated. [Paras 18 & 19]

(4) Departmental Enquiry -- two charge-sheets issued to petitioner by respondents for same allegation -- effect -- after issuance of first charge-sheet, petitioner submitted reply -- nothing happened thereafter -- then second charge-sheet issued for same charge -- since enquiry has not yet commenced, there would be no impediment in conducting enquiry either pursuant to earlier charge-sheet or subsequent charge-sheet -- issuance of subsequent charge-sheet only shows that earlier charge-sheet is dropped by respondents and is not to be proceeded further -- held -- respondents are entitled to continue with enquiry pursuant to subsequent charge-sheet only. [Para 21]

(5) Constitution of India -- Art. 20(2) -- double jeopardy -- three show cause notices issued -- what is prohibited under Art. 20(2) is prosecution/punishment for same act -- pursuant to two show cause notices, no punishment has yet been imposed upon petitioner -- in fact, no enquiry has commenced pursuant to those show cause notices/charge-sheets -- argument alleging double jeopardy not available to petitioner. [Para 22]

(6) Departmental Enquiry -- allegation of bias against enquiry officer -- except bald averment, no allegation made as to why enquiry officer would be biased against him -- in absence of specific allegations, bald assertion of mala fide not acceptable. [Para 23]

¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & foyac ds vk/kkj ij vkjksii= dk vfHk[kaMu & vkjksii= foyac ds ,dek= vk/kkj ij vfHk[kafMr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & U;k;ky; }kjk leLr lqlaxr rF;ksa ij euu fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS] ftlesa vkjksiksa dh xaHkhjrk lfEefyr gS & U;k;ky; }kjk ;g vo/kkfjr djus ds fy, ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks vk¡dk tkuk visf{kr gS fd D;k foyac ds vk/kkj ij dk;Zokgh lekIr djuk LoPN vkSj lR;fu"B ç'kklu ds fgr esa gS & foyac ds vk/kkj ij dk;Zokgh rc gh vfHk[kafMr dh tk ldrh gS tc vipkjh LFkkfir dj lds fd le; O;ixr gksus ds dkj.k ml ij çfrdwy çHkko iM+k gSA 1999 ,llhlh ¼,y ,aM ,l½ 646] ¼2013½ 6 ,llhlh 530 rFkk ¼2025½ 8 ,llhlh 696 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 12½
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & foyac ds vk/kkj ij vkjksii= dk vfHk[kaMu & 2010&11 vkSj 2014&15 ds e/; dh vof/k ds nkSjku dwVjfpr vkSj xढ+s gq, fpfdRlk fcyksa ds vk/kkj ij fpfdRlk çfriwfrZ dk ykHk ysus dk vfHkdFku & vfHkdFku xaHkhj vkSj nLrkosth lk{; ij vk/kkfjr & dqy :i;s 9]64]257@& dk xcu & u dsoy yksd /ku nk¡o ij yxk gS] cfYd vipkjh dh lR;fu"Bk vkSj bZekunkjh dh tk¡p Hkh dh tkuk gS & bl çØe ij foyac ds ,dek= vk/kkj ij vkjksii= vfHk[kafMr djuk LoPN vkSj lR;fu"B ç'kklu ds fgr esa ughaA fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 12170 lu~ 2021] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 16471 lu~ 2017 rFkk fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 4145 lu~ 2015 çHksfnrA 1990 lIyh- ,llhlh 738] ¼1998½ 4 ,llhlh 154 rFkk ¼2006½ 5 ,llhlh 88 foosfprA ¼2013½ 6 ,llhlh 530 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 14 ls 17½
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & e-Á- flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 & fu- 16 & fu- 16¼1½¼d½ ds v/khu dkj.k crkvks lwpuk ;kph ls ;g ek¡x djrs gq, tkjh dh xbZ fd og mÙkj ns] ftlesa vlQy jgus ij mls fuyafcr djus vkSj vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh vkjaHk djus dh dk;Zokgh vkjaHk dh tk,xh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & bl dkj.k crkvks lwpuk }kjk vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh okLro esa vkjaHk ugha dh xbZ] vfirq mudk vkjaHk fd;k tkuk çLrkfor ek= Fkk & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd xkS.k 'kkfLr dh dk;Zokgh vkjaHk dh xbZA ¼iSjk 18 ,oa 19½
¼4½ foHkkxh; tk¡p & çR;FkhZx.k }kjk ,d&gh vfHkdFku ds fy, ;kph dks nks vkjksii= tkjh fd, x, & çHkko & çFke vkjksii= tkjh fd, tkus i'pkr~ ;kph us mÙkj fn;k & rRi'pkr~ dqN ugha gqvk & fQj mlh vkjksi ds fy, f}rh; vkjksii= tkjh fd;k x;k & D;ksafd vHkh rd tk¡p vkjaHk ugha gqbZ] iwoZrj vkjksii= ;k fQj ijorhZ vkjksii= ds vuqlj.k esa tk¡p djus esa dksbZ vM+pu ugha gksxh & ijorhZ vkjksii= tkjh fd, tkus ls ;gh nf'kZr gksrk gS fd çR;FkhZx.k }kjk iwoZrj vkjksii= okil ys fy;k x;k gS vkSj ml ij vkxs dk;Zokgh ugha dh tkuk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & çR;FkhZx.k ijorhZ vkjksii= ds vuqlj.k esa gh tk¡p tkjh j[kus ds gdnkj gSaA ¼iSjk 21½
¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 20¼2½ & nksgjk ifjladV & rhu dkj.k crkvks lwpuk,¡ tkjh dh xbZa & vuqPNsn 20¼2½ ds v/khu tks çfrf"k) gS og gS ,d&gh —R; ds fy, vfHk;kstu@naM & nks dkj.k crkvks lwpukvksa ds vuqlj.k esa vc rd ;kph ij dksbZ naM vf/kjksfir ugha fd;k x;k & oLrqr% mu dkj.k crkvks lwpukvksa@vkjksii=ksa ds vuqlj.k esa dksbZ tk¡p vkjaHk ugha gqbZ & nksgjk ifjladV vfHkdfFkr djus dk rdkZ/kkj ;kph dks miyC/k ughaA ¼iSjk 22½
¼6½ foHkkxh; tk¡p & tk¡p vf/kdkjh ds fo:) i{kikr dk vfHkdFku & dksjs çdFku ds flok;] bl ckjs esa dksbZ vfHkdFku ugha fd;k x;k fd tk¡p vfèkdkjh mlds fo:) i{kikr D;ksa djsxk & fofufnZ"V vfHkdFku ds vHkko esa vln~Hkko dk dksjk çk[;ku Lohdk;Z ughaA ¼iSjk 23½

ORDER :

ASHISH SHROTI, J.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the charge-sheet dated 12/12/2024 (Annexure P/1) and the charge-sheet dated 27/3/2019 (Annexure P/6) issued by respondent no. 2, being illegal and arbitrary. He has prayed for a direction to the respondents not to institute any disciplinary proceedings in relation to the allegations made in the aforesaid charge-sheet.

2. Facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Bull Attender in Animal Husbandry & Dairying Department. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer (AVFO) on 7/8/2019 and was posted in the office of respondent no.5- Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Services Department, Gwalior. During the year 2015-16, a complaint was received against the petitioner alleging that he has fraudulently obtained the reimbursement of medical expenses based upon forged and fabricated document. It appears that a preliminary enquiry was conducted by respondent no.5, wherein, the allegations made were prima facie found correct. Initially, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18/1/2016 (Annexure P/3), asking him to explain the aforesaid allegations. The petitioner gave his reply on 22/3/2016. It appears that no further action was taken pursuant to this show cause notice.

3. It appears that some communication was made by respondent no.2 with the State Govt. in response to which vide memo dated 13/12/2018 (Annexure P/5), the Additional Secretary, Veterinary Department wrote to respondent no.2 stating that the allegations made against the petitioner needs to be inquired into at his level only. The respondent no.2, thereafter, issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner vide memo dated 27/3/2019 (Annexure P/6). Allegations made in this charge-sheet are with regard to obtaining reimbursement of the medical expenses, amounting to Rs.9,64,257/- in relation to the treatment of his wife and himself during the period ranging from 2010-11 to 2014-15. The petitioner gave reply to this charge-sheet also on 27/3/2019 (Annexure P/6) and again nothing happened and the silence prevailed.

4. The respondent no.2 has now issued the impugned charge sheet dated 12/12/2024, (Annexure P/1) wherein, following charge has been levelled against the petitioner:-

5. The petitioner has challenged this charge-sheet as also the earlier charge-sheet dated 27/3/2019 primarily on the ground of delay. It is his submission that the show cause notice itself was issued after the delay of about 10 years while, the impugned charge-sheets have been issued after further lapse of about five years. He has also submitted that the issuance of charge-sheet dated 12/12/2024 & 27/3/2019, amounts to double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India in view of show cause notice dated 18/1/2016 already issued to the petitioner in relation to same allegations. The petitioner has also alleges that respondent no.3, impleaded in persons capacity is biased against him, as a result of which, the impugned charge-sheets have been issued.

6. Challenging the impugned charge-sheets, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the charge-sheets are liable to be quashed on the ground of inordinate unexplained delay. It is his submission that the allegations made against the petitioner in impugned charge-sheets relate back to year 2010-11 to 2014-15. Thus, the issuance of charge-sheet on 27/3/2019 and 12/12/2024 without there being any explanation for delay, vitiates the action taken by the respondents. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the coordinate Bench decisions of this Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Kanwar Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. in W.P. No.12170/2021, Suraj Singh Shikarwar Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. in W.P. No.16471/2017 and Dinesh Awasthi Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. in W.P. No.4145/2015.

7. The learned counsel also argued that in view of show cause not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document