IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI WRIT PETITION No.13147 OF 2022 SURESH CHANDRA TIWARI Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Prashant Sharma– learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Shiraz Qureshi- learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

Reserved on : 23/01/2026 Delivered on : 09/02/2026

ORDER

1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging order dated 06/05/2022, whereby the punishment of withholding of 10% pension for a period of ten years has been imposed upon him under Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner at the relevant time was working as Sub-Divisional Officer, Ashoknagar during the period from 22/08/2012 to 21/08/2013. While the departmental enquiry was pending, he attained the age of superannuation and stood retire from the service w.e.f. 31.05.2014.

3. One Kamal Singh Raghuvanshi was working as Patwari. On account of certain acts of misconduct, a departmental enquiry was conducted against him which concluded with passing of order of compulsory retirement from service on 28/07/2004. He challenged the punishment order before this Court in W.P. No.4045/2005 which came to be allowed on 31/07/2012 (Annexure-P/5). This Court was of the view that the enquiry conducted against Shri Raghuvanshi is in violation of principles of natural justice. This Court quashed the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority as also the order passed by the appellate authority and directed re-instatement of Shri Raghuvanshi with back-wages. The liberty was also given to the respondents to conduct the enquiry from the stage, defects crept in, in the enquiry and the respondents were directed to conclude the departmental enquiry within eight months.

4. When the order was not complied with, Shri Raghuvanshi filed Conc. No.139/2014 alleging non-compliance of the Court order. Notices were issued and while the contempt petition was pending, the order passed by this Court was complied with.

5. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 02/04/2014 asking his to explain as to why appropriate steps in relation to and in compliance of order passed by this court, was not taken by him. He submitted reply on 24/04/2014 stating that he took necessary steps in relation to the High Court order and the efforts to trace out the enquiry record of Shri Kamal Singh were also made. He wrote to Tehsildar in this regard. He further stated that on account of constitution of sub- division Isagarh on 15/08/2013, the matter was transmitted to SDO Isargarh for further action.

6. The charge-sheet was then issued to the petitioner on 28/05/2015 alleging that the order passed by this Court in the case of Shri Raghuvanshi was required to be complied within eight months, however, the petitioner did not take necessary steps for conducting departmental enquiry pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court. It is further alleged that the petitioner did not take any step for filing an appeal against the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.4045/2005. It was further alleged that on account of filing of the contempt petition by Shri Kamal Singh Raghuvanshi, the department was compelled to pay the back-wages and revised pension to Shri Raghuvanshi. It was, thus, alleged against the petitioner that he failed to take adequate steps to safeguard the interest of the State Government.

7. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 03/06/2015 wherein he has stated that he made efforts for collecting the record of the departmental enquiry of Shri Raghuvanshi in order to comply with the order passed by this Court. He stated that record of the departmental enquiry was missing as the same was taken by Shri Karan Singh Ahirwar- Assistant Grade-III from the office to hand it over to the Government Advocate for purposes of filin