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

nd

ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 12729 of 2009 D.K.PANDEY Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri K.C. Ghildiyal - Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S.P. Mishra -

Advocate and Shri Aaditya Singh Thakur - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sachin Jain - Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"7.1 To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the record relating to the petitioner's dismissal for its kind perusal and reference.

7.2 To issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quashed the orders dated 13.04.2006, 11.08.2006 & 12.03.2007 in their entirety with all consequential benefit.

7.3 Any other writ direction or order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. The facts as mentioned in the body of the petition reflect that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable in the year 1994. He was suspended vide order dated 15.06.2005 contained in Annexure P/1. The respondents first conducted a preliminary enquiry and afterwards found that a regular departmental enquiry was required, therefore issued a charge sheet dated 16.06.2005 contained in Annexure P/2. As per the charges sheet, the petitioner was charged with the allegation of collecting illegal gratification amounting to Rs. 160 from the transport agent/supervisors while being on ‘B’ shift duty from 13:00 hrs to 21:00 hrs on 14.06.2005 at Gate-2 for checking out the vehicle. It was further alleged that the petitioner threw the money when SP Dagar, AC, and Insp/Exe Sunil Goyar approached the gate, and the same was also witnessed by S.I./Exe Suram Singh. The petitioner filed a reply to the alleged charge sheet which is contained in Annexure P/3. A notice dated 19.08.2005 was issued to the petitioner for a preliminary hearing, and after recording the statements of all the witnesses, the enquiry officer prepared the enquiry report dated 03.12.2005 (Annexure P/5) wherein the charge levelled against the petitioner was found proved. Subsequently, respondent No. 5 issued order dated 05.12.2005 (Annexure P/10) imposing the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs 3575/- to 3500/- for a period of one year with the further order that during the period of reduction he will not earn increments of pay and on expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment.

3. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 20.02.2006 was issued by the respondent no. 4, while exercising suo moto power of review against the petitioner proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The reply was filed by the petitioner against the said show cause notice, and ultimately, an order dated 13.04.2006 (Annexure P/12) was passed by respondent no. 4, by which the petitioner was dismissed from the services. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal before the appellate authority by filing an appeal but the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2006 contained in Annexure P/14, then petitioner preferred a revision before Director General, CISF, New Delhi but the same was also turned down vide order dated

12.03.2007 contained in Annexure P/15. Hence, this petition.

4. Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case, the enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner as the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to defend himself. It was further contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated on account of conspiracy as he made a serious allegation against some persons. Counsel contends that the respondents did not consider the testimonies of the PW-4 and PW-5, who supported the case of the petitioner. It was further contended that no independent eyewitness was examined even after making the repetitive