IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

th

ON THE 12 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 3878 of 2012

SUDHIR SINGH KUSHWAH

Versus

STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Siddharth Sharma - learned counsel for petitioner.

Shri Rajendra Jain - learned Government Advocate for

respondent/State.

ORDER Disciplinary Authority appointed the Enquiry Officer; however, no Presenting Officer was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority. The entire enquiry was conducted by Enquiry Officer himself, who acted as the Presenting Officer. It is further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority supplied a copy of the Enquiry Report, and the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to Annexure P/5 dated 09.05.2010. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 10.07.2010, which is non-

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

" It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the instant

petition

may kindly be allowed and a writ of mandamus and/or a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ be issued against the respondent and following reliefs may

kindly be granted:-

i- The orders annexures P/1 to P/4 may kindly be

quashed being void-ab-initio.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case same may kindly

be granted to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that at the relevant point of

time, petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector. A charge-sheet was issued, whereafter petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet. Subsequently, the

speaking and unreasoned.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and without considering the facts and grounds raised by petitioner, non-speaking and unreasoned punishment order dated 10-7-2010 was issued by S.P. Gwalior. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the respondents/Disciplinary Authority has not assigned any reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s reply, which is contrary to judgment reported in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that thereafter petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected by impugned order dated 15.10.2010.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for State submits that there is no infirmity in the order of punishment since petitioner was found guilty of dereliction of duties and therefore after ascertaining the charges it was found that petitioner had failed to discharge the duties, therefore, aforementioned orders passed by the authority is absolutely proportionate and warrants no interference. It is further submitted that appellate authority also examined the entire record and on perusal of the material, the order of competent authority was affirmed by Appellate Authority. Hence after having proper adjudication of the matter by the appellate authority nothing remains to be interfered in the present matter and petition prima-facie being devoid of substance deserves to be dismissed. It is further submitted that only scope of interference in the cases of punishment is to examine the manner in which departmental enquiry is conducted. In the present case, departmental enquiry was conducted keeping in view of the principle of natural justice and fair play. On these grounds he prays for rejection of this petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Important part of the punishment order dated 10.7.2010 (Annexure P/3) is quoted herein below:-

"आरोपी (cid:6)ारा (cid:8)(cid:9)तुत उ(cid:13)र म(cid:15) तक(cid:17) (cid:18)दया गया है (cid:18)क उसके (cid:26)व(cid:28)(cid:29) आरोप (cid:8)मा(cid:30)णत नह(cid:33) है, जॅाचकता(cid:17) अिधकार(cid:33) (cid:6)ारा सा(cid:40)य का आंकलन सह(cid:33) (cid:28)प से नह(cid:33) (cid:18)कया गया है। उसके (cid:6)ारा (cid:8)(cid:9)तुत सा(cid:40)य गलत न होकर