IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN ON THE 9^th OF OCTOBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 25953 of 2024 KONARK BHARADWAJ Versus M.P. RAJYA KRISHI VIPARAN BOARD AND OTHERS ……………………………………………………………………………………………

Appearance:

Shri Jubin Prasad - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Rohit Jain – Advocate for the respondent.

…………………………………………………………………………………………….

O R D E R

(Reserved on 09.10.2025)

(Pronounced on 15.10.2025)

The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P-10 dated 10.08.2023 thereby dismissing the petitioner from service that has been confirmed by the order Annexure P-12 in appeal dated

12.08.2024.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the aforesaid penalty could not have been awarded to the petitioner because he was visited with a second charge sheet on the same set of allegations and in earlier round, a charge sheet was issued to him vide Annexure P-3 dated

10.10.2019 in response to which a departmental enquiry ensued which resulted in passing of penalty order dated 24.02.2020 whereby the penalty of extension of probation period by one year was awarded to the petitioner. 3. It is argued that thereafter on the same set of allegations a fresh charge sheet was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P-6 dated 7.02.2022 which is totally unauthorized act on part of the respondents and it is settled in law that second charge sheet on same set of allegations cannot be issued.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a number of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court to contend that second charge sheet on same set of allegations cannot be issued and therefore, it is vehemently argued that the penalty order of dismissal be set aside.

5. It is further argued that the respondents have taken a plea that the earlier penalty order Annexure P-4 was reviewed and the fresh charge sheet has been issued as a consequence of order passed by the reviewing authority. It is argued that such contention cannot be accepted because there is no provision for review in the service regulations of Respondent Board.

6. Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the Respondent- Board that the power for review is very much there in the service regulations as per Clause 38(three) thereof and therefore, the fresh charge sheet having been issued in pursuance to order of the reviewing authority, no indulgence deserves to be caused in the matter. It is argued that the petitioner had committed grave malpractices and even in the first enquiry the malpractices had been proved and now the petitioner cannot argue that the malpractices are not made out because the earlier order of penalty was never challenged by the petitioner in which also his malpractices were found proved. 7. Heard.

8. In the present case, the petitioner was earlier penalized by order Annexure P-4 dated 24.02.2020 and then a fresh charge sheet has been issued to him vide Annexure P-6 dated 7.02.2022 on the same set of allegations.

9. The respondents have defended their action on the ground that the earlier order was reviewed and the permission of the authority was accorded for reviewing the earlier order in pursuance to which the fresh charge sheet has been issued vide Annexure P-6. This was countered by the petitioner on the ground that there is no power of review vested in the service regulations.

10. The services of the petitioner are subjected to State Mandi Board Service Regulations, 1998 and as per clause 38(three) of the said regulations, the power of review has been vested in the following terms:-

(तीन) पुन वलोकन का अिधकार :

(1) रा य म ड बोड सेवा के सद य ारा विनयम 30 म विन द कये गये कसी भी शा त अिधरो पत वाल े आदेश के व ऐसे आदेश क ाि क तार ख से छः माह के अ दर अनुसूची-9 म व णत स म, अपीलीय ािधकार से अगले उ च अिधकार को पनु वल ोकन हेत ु आवेदन तुत कया जा

सकेगा।

पनु वल ोकनकता अिधकार कसी भी समय या तो व ेरणा से अथवा इस हेत ु उस े आवेदन तुत होने पर, करण स े संबिं धत जांच