IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 8 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 811 of 2008 VIJAY RAJ SINGH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ayush Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Akshansh Shrivastava - Panel Lawyer for the State.

ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

"I. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned order dated 4/7/07 (Anx P-13) passed by respondent no 1 as also order dated 22/11/04 (Anx P-110 passed by respondent no 2.

II. To grant any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances of present case."

2. The facts, as detailed in the petition, are that the petitioner was working as Assistant Grade II. He made a communication dated 3.9.2004 requesting to supply certain records. According to the respondents, in the said communication, the language used by the petitioner was termed as 'unparliamentary', therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 8.9.2004 (Annexure P-9). While issuing the said show cause notice, the petitioner was called upon to submit his response and in the event of failure, action in terms of Rule 16(1)(a) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was intimated. The petitioner submitted his reply on 17.9.2004 vide Annexure P-10. However, without considering the reply of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 22.11.2004 (Annexure P-11) was passed by which two increments of the petitioner were withheld with non cumulative effect. The petitioner assailed the said order by way of filing an appeal, however, the appeal has also been dismissed. Hence, this petition.

3. The counsel for the petitioner contends that this is a case where the petitioner has been condemned unheard. It is contended that the correspondence which was made by the petitioner in a most humble manner, was made instrumental to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. It is contended that the allegations even if are taken into consideration on their face value, same do not constitute any misconduct so as to attract the power of imposition of penalty. Unfortunately, the respondents have proceeded to issue show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply thereof, however, while ignoring the said reply, impugned order was passed. The Authority observed in the penultimate paragraph that the reply of the petitioner was not satisfactory and accordingly, proceeded to pass the impugned order. Unfortunately, the Appellate Authority also did not appreciate this aspect of the matter and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

4. The counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order and submitted that the language used by the petitioner in the communication dated 3.9.2004 was unparliamentary, which was objectionable considering the code of conduct. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to maintain discipline while making official correspondences. Therefore, looking to the conduct of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority have rightly exercised their powers in accordance with law. There is no infirmity in the impugned orders and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard submissions and perused the record.

6. On perusal of record, it reflects that the petitioner had moved a representation for expungement of adverse remark made in the confidential report pertaining to the year 2001-02 on 18.10.2002. The said representation of the petitioner was turned down on 18.8.2004. After said rejection, the petitioner moved an application dated 3.9.2004 (Annexure P-8) demanding certain documents. The relevant extract of the said application are reproduced as under"-

"(cid:1)ित, माननीय महािनर(cid:11)(cid:12)क पंजीयन एवं अधी(cid:12)क मु(cid:22)ांक, म०(cid:1)० भोपाल फे (cid:29)स नं०-2441941 (cid:31)वषय:- मेरे गोपनीय (cid:1)ितवेदन 01