Court confirmed that detailed inquiries are not always necessary for minor penalty impositions; procedural lapses void the orders.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI th ON THE 8 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 3617 of 2025 ANURAG VERMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri D.P.Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Man Singh Jadon- Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated, 14.01.2025, (Annexure P/1) whereby a minor punishment of recovery of Rs.6,86,676/- has been imposed upon the petitioner on account of loss caused to the department.

[2]. Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection with regard to availability of alternate remedy of filing an appeal against the interim order under the provisions of The Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. This Court initially entertained the writ petition and passed the interim order on 20.05.2025. The respondents have accordingly filed reply and the arguments were heard with the consent of the parties.

[3]. The petitioner was working as Constable SAF and at the relevant time was posted at 18th Battalion, SAF, Shivpuri. He was assigned the duty Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR at Petrol Pump run by 18th Battalion, SAF, Shivpuri for the period from 06.12.2023 to 26.09.2024. As per the submission of the petitioner, one Dharamveer Shakya - Head Constable was in-charge of Petrol Pump while the petitioner and another Constable - Amit Sharma were assisting him. [4]. The Head Constable Dharamveer Shakya made an application to the Commandant regarding closuer of the Petrol Pump on account of leakage in tank. The Commandant, in turn, directed for investigation by the Assistant Commandant Mr. Parmal Singh Mehra. The preliminary enquiry was accordingly conducted by the Assistant Commandant and the report was submitted on 14.07.2024. As per the report, a shortage of 21,101 liters of Diesel/Petrol was found in the tank for which the petitioner, Anil Sharma and others were found responsible. From the return filed by the respondents, it is further gathered that some enquiry was also conducted by the Deputy Commandant wherein also the shortage of Petrol/Diesel was found because of which loss of Rs.20,60,028/- has been reported. Acting upon the aforesaid, preliminary enquiry report, the impugned order has been passed on 14.01.2025 thereby directing recovery of amount from the petitioner and other two.

[5]. The learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the impugned order on the ground that the impugned order is unsustainable in law inasmuch as the same has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is his submission that the impugned order could not been passed without conducting an enquiry under Rule 14 of CCA Rules in view of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR vs. Union of India reported in (2001)9 SCC 180. He further submitted that the order has been passed solely based upon the preliminary enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner and, therefore, the same deserves to be set-aside.

[6]. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that in case of imposition of minor penalty, detailed enquiry is not required. He further submitted that the impugned order has been passed based upon the enquiry conducted by the Assistant Commandant Mr. Parmal Singh Mehra as also by the Deputy Commandant wherein the shortage of Petrol/Diesel to the extent of 19,526/- litres has been found which has resulted in financial loss to the department to the tune of Rs.20,60,028/-. Therefore, the aforesaid amount has been directed to be recovered from three incumbents fou