IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 1824 of 2015 AUDESH KUMAR SINGH GAUR Versus MADHYA PRADESH POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi – Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Ravi Jain – Counsel for respondent.

___________________________________________________________________

ORDER

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

“(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed;

(ii) That, the order dated 29.11.2014 Annexure P/1 and the order dated 5.2.2015 Annexure P/2 passed by the respondents may kindly be directed to be quashed.

(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially petitioner was appointed as Assistant Operator (T.A. Grade-II) in the year 1979 and thereafter was promoted in the year 1996 as Senior Testing Assistant. Thereafter, on 28.02.2013, petitioner was placed under suspension by the competent authority. Subsequently, after three months, the suspension order of petitioner was revoked by the respondents vide order dated 06.05.2013. For revocation of the suspension order, the respondents issued a charge-sheet dated 30.03.2013, in which three charges were levelled against petitioner. It is further submitted that along with the charge-sheet, the relevant documents were not supplied to petitioner, thereby causing serious prejudice to him. Petitioner demanded the said documents; however, even after such demand, the documents were not supplied. It is further submitted that without considering the reply to the charge-sheet, the respondents appointed the Enquiry Officer as well as the Presenting Officer. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer found two charges proved against petitioner, while one charge was not found proved. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice to petitioner and in turn, petitioner prayed for two weeks' time to submit the reply to the show-cause notice. However, without extending him an apportunity to file reply, Disciplinary Authority imposed the major punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and Appellate Authority having considered appeal modified the punishment by awarding withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the petitioner was supplied with the available documents and that the documents which were available had already been supplied to the petitioner vide order dated 30.05.2014. It is further submitted that the script record register for the period from 03.12.2012 to 16.03.2013 is not available, which fact is also mentioned in the departmental inquiry. Therefore, the said document could not be supplied due to its non-availability. The available documents were already supplied to the petitioner along with letters dated 30.05.2014 and 26.08.2014. It is further submitted that the respondents have completed the departmental inquiry and imposed the punishment in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to petitioner.

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

5. Before considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court would like to consider the scope of interference in departmental matters.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and another Vs. N.

Gangraj reported in (2020) 3 SCC 423 has held as under:

“8. We find that the interference in the order of punishment by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court suffers from patent error. The power of judicial review i