IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 27 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 2141 of 2016 JAGDISH SINGH RATHORE Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Anil Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Prabhat Pateriya – Deputy Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

“The petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and thereby issuing a writ/ orders / directions / mandamus to quash the impugned orders as contained in Annexure P/1 and P/2 in the interest of justice. To pass such other further order (s) deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. Cost may also be awarded. Cost may also be awarded.”

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Teacher and in the month of January 2010, the election of Panchayat was under process and he was appointed as Presiding Officer for Polling Booth Centre No.135 of District Morena under the provision of Section 28 (a) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. It is submitted that petitioner was deemed to be on deputation at that time. As such, all the disciplinary powers were vested with the Election Commission or with the Departmental Disciplinary Authority. It is further submitted that during polling, some persons ceased/ encroached the polling booth, interfered with the election process and snatched the ballot papers and also put water into ballot box and against such actions of some persons of village, petitioner had immediately informed the Zonal Officer and other high officials and on advice of higher officers, petitioner was directed to make an FIR. After such incident, petitioner enquired and tried to identify such un- authorized elements and after collecting their names, petitioner made police report and Crime No.31/10 dated 21.01.2010 was registered under Sections 353, 395, 171 (Ga) of IPC and under Sections 11 and 13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that names of such accused persons were collected by petitioner from the villagers and he was not knowing the same personally. It is further submitted that consequent upon FIR, such accused persons were tried by the Special Judge and subsequently, they were exonerated by the court of law and during the trial, petitioner had given his evidence but he could not depose their names at the time of evidence i.e. after a period of one year because such persons were not belonging to the village of petitioner, not knowing the accused persons, whose names were gathered from the villagers and all such incident was made in a few minutes, so it was not possible for petitioner to identify all the persons after a period of one year from the incident. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that after acquittal of accused, third respondent issued a charge-sheet under Rule 14 read with Rule 18 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for brevity “the Rules”). Petitioner immediately replied to the show-cause notice. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and report was submitted on 30.08.2012. The respondents issued show- cause notice along with report of Enquiry Officer and asked the reply. Petitioner immediately replied to the same. It is further submitted that without considering the reply, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 7.7.2015 (Annexure P-1) thereby withholding two increments without cumulative effect. Piqued by the said punishment, petitioner submitted appeal which was also rejected by order dated 02.02.2016 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that petitioner was deemed to be on deputation under Election Commission and as such, powers of any disciplinary action were vested only with the Election