IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

ON THE 9^th OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 8228 of 2011

PRAHLAD SINGH YADAV

Versus

STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri S.K.Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Rajendra Jain GA appearing on behalf of State.

ORDER effect has been proposed by the disciplinary authority. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, as per Rule 15 (2) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short 'Rules of 1966'), the disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiry authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own finding on such charge, if he evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, without following a aforesaid procedure, without recording its reason for such disagreement and without recording its own findings on such charges, punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect has been proposed, which is contrary to Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 15 of Rules of 1966. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that without considering reply submitted by the Petitioner, by non-speaking and unreasoned order, dated 12th September 2011, punishment of withholding one increment without community effect has been imposed upon the Petitioner.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed

seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) That, the impugned order dated 12.09.2011 Annexure P/1 and order

dated 4.03.2009 Annexure P/2 may kindly be quashed.

(ii) That, respondents be further directed to grant promotion after considering the case of petitioner on the post of Sub-Inspector with all

consequential benefit.

(iii) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, with cost

of the petition."

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, at the relevant point of time,

the petitioner was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector in District Shivpuri. Charge sheet has been issued and thereafter Enquiry has been conducted by the Enquiry Officer and after conducting regular department inquiry, the Enquiry Officer considered overall situation and evidence came on record, arrived at a conclusion that charges framed against the petitioner are not found proved. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that thereafter the disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice dated 4th March 2009 and the disciplinary authority discredited that enquiry report and without recording reason for disagreement and without calling reply on the reason for disagreement directly, punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative

Per Contra, learned Government advocate opposed the prayer made by the Petitioner and supported the impugned order, and submitted that Petitioner has committed several illegalities and irregularities during his service period, and Petitioner has violated provisions of Section 154 and 584 of the Police Regulation, and in view of the same, Petitioner was rightly charge sheeted and rightly punished by impugned punishment order, Heard both the counsel for the parties and passed the record.

At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Sub-

Inspector in District Shivpuri. Charge sheet has been issued and thereafter Enquiry has been conducted by the Enquiry Officer and after conducting regular department inquiry, the Enquiry Officer considered overall situation and evidence came on record, arrived at a conclusion that charges framed against the petitioner are not found proved. Thereafter the disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice dated 4th March

2009 and the disciplinary authority discredited that enquiry report and without recording reason for disagreement and without calling reply on the reason for disagreement directly, punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect has been proposed by