IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 8 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 21877 of 2019 VINOD KUMAR BARGAHI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Shri Karnik Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Anshuman Swamy - G.A. for the respondent/State.

ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :-

i) A writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 20.4.2016 (Annexure P/4) and

27.4.2018 (Annexure P/5) issued by respondent no.5 and 3.

ii) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to relieve the petitioner of all the consequential of the order of penalty dated 20.4.2016 and also refund the amount, which has been recovered from the petitioner along with interest.

iii) Any other appropriate writ order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working on the substantive post of Assistant Teacher in the Tribal Development Department. At the relevant time, the petitioner was holding the charge of Superintendent of Tribal Boys Hostel, Rasmohani. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by respondent no.5 on 24.9.2015 inter alia alleging that while working as Superintendent of Hostel, Rasmohani, during the year 2013-14 the petitioner had withdrawn the amount of 26 students by making forged attendance entries in Attendance Register as well as Mess Register. The second charge was to the effect that student Ramesh Singh of class 6th who did not appear in the examination in any subject was shown present for the entire session w.e.f. July, 2013 to April, 2014 and the amount of his scholarship was withdrawn. On the basis of charge-sheet a departmental enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer found the charges partly proved against the petitioner vide its report dated 10.3.2016 and after affording opportunity to show cause, imposed major penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect vide impugned order dated 20.4.2016. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of punishment was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.4.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that earlier on the basis of report dated 12.12.2014 of the preliminary enquiry conducted by Block Education Officer, Budhar, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 27.2.2015 to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.2,04,984/- was withdrawn from the accounts without verification by the Headmaster. Reply to the notice was submitted by the petitioner and thereafter penalty of recovery of Rs.1,02,550/- in ten equal instalments from the salary of the petitioner was imposed vide order dated 14.9.2015. It is contended that as recovery is one of the prescribed minor penalties under Rule 10 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, it is apparent that petitioner was imposed minor penalty for the same set of charges and thereafter again charge-sheet dated 24.9.2015 had been issued containing same set of charges and again major penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect has been imposed amounts to double jeopardy as the petitioner has been punished twice for same charges. It is submitted that the amount ordered to be recovered has already been recovered from the salary of the petitioner. It is further submitted that once the petitioner was punished with minor penalty for the same lapse, then fresh enquiry is barred under the law and order imposing another punishment for the same charge is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed W.P.No.18485/2016 challenging the order date