IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

th

ON THE 13 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 8260 of 2015 SURESH CHANDRA DIXIT Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arun Katare - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri G.K.Agarwal - Government Advocate for respondents/State.

ORDER This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred seeking the following relief(s):

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

(ii) That, by issuance of the writ order or direction, the order dated 31.3.2015 Annexure P/1, order dated 14.7.2015 Annexure P/2 and the joint charge-sheet Annexure P/3 dated 4.12.2013 passed by the respondents may kindly be directed to be quashed and the respondents may kindly be further directed to release the difference of salary and allowance of the suspension period 15.7.2013 to 15.8.2013 and pay the outstanding arrears of increments which was deducted by the respondents.

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

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable on 09.05.1983. Charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner as well as other co-delinquent. Inquiry Officer has been appointed and during the course of enquiry, Inquiry Officer himself conducted the cross-

examination as is clear by Annexure P-4 dated 02.11.2014. Learned counsel submitted that since cross-examination has been conducted of by the Inquiry Officer, entire enquiry is vitiated because conduct of the Inquiry Officer is violative to M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. As Inquiry Officer has cross-examined the witnesses then he has not acted as a Judge and he has acted as a Prosecution Officer and and it is settled position that no one can be a good Judge for his own cause.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that thereafter enquiry report has been submitted before the concerned authority and the said authority has passed the punishment order dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure P-1), by which, the impugned punishment withholding with one annual increment for cumulative effect has been imposed and also mentioned that petitioner is not entitled for the salary of suspension period. Thereafter petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. Appeal has been rejected by order dated 14.7.2015 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if the minor penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner, then the petitioner is entitled for the salary of suspension period as per the judgment passed in the case of Y.S. Sachan Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2004 (1) MPHT 22.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State has vehemently opposed the contentions and supported the impugned order stating that the petitioner, who has participated in the departmental enquiry, has never raised such objection before the authorities. It is only after conclusion of the departmental enquiry and passing of the punishment order, such objection was taken for the first time in this writ petition. It is argued that the interference with respect to departmental enquiry is limited to the extent that there cannot be any reappreciation of evidence at this stage. In this regard, certain parameters have been provided in the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to interference in the cases of departmental enquiry. Placing reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Union of India and others vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Heard.

6. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, it is found that the Inquiry