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

th

ON THE 15 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 19859 of 2017 SUKHLAL GARDE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Ms. Kaushiki Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Akshansh Shrivastava - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: -

“(i) Summon the entire relevant records from the possession of the respondent No.1, for its kind perusal;

(ii) Set aside the impugned punishment order dated 24.12.2012 Annexure P/1 and the appellate order dated

10.03.2015 Annexure P/2;

(iii) Command the respondents to release all consequential benefits as if the impugned orders aforesaid are never passed;

(iv) Any other order/direction which deems fit and proper may also be passed;

(v) Award cost of the litigation to the petitioners.”

2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Forest Guard and thereafter was promoted to the post of Forester. The petitioner was placed under suspension and issued a charge- sheet dated 20.07.2009, contained in Annexure P/3, alleging that the petitioner, when was posted as Regional Assistant (Beat Guard, Lalbarra)

was intrusted with Elite Seclection work of bamboo plantation and while being so posted he released an excess payment of Rs. 1,71,124/- without actual work and intentionally embezzled the amount of Rs. 1,85,420/-, which amounted to misconduct as per Rule 3 of M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the said charge- sheet, but eventually he was served with the order of punishment dated 24.12.2012 contained in Annexure P/1 by which a penalty of recovery of Rs. 51,337/- along with a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was inflicted upon the petitioner and also the period of suspension i.e. 26.06.2009 to 15.10.2009 was to be treated as suspension for all purposes. The petitioner assailed the said order of punishment before the Appellate Authority, but it was turned down by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.03.2015 contained in the Annexure P/2. Aggrieved by the above orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of punishment was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the report of the enquiry officer was never provided to the petitioner, which debarred the petitioner from defending himself properly in the course of the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner contends that the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of punishment solely based on the evidence presented with the report of the Enquiry Officer, without considering the points raised by the petitioner in his representation. It is further contended by the petitioner that the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the prosecution brief, along with the enquiry report, was not supplied to the petitioner during the disciplinary proceedings, and in the absence of the same, the petitioner was not in a position to submit an effective defence and hence seeks quashment of the impugned orders. Counsel in support of her contention has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 434, and State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh passed in Civil Appeal No. 14724/2024.

4. Per contra, the counsel for the State submits that the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. It is contended by the counsel that the charge-sheet, along with a list of witnesses and documents were duly supplied to the petitioner, and after a full-fledged inquiry in accordance with law and after considering the reply of the pe