IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI ON THE 20^th OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No.20214 of 2024 SALEEM KHAN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri L.C. Patne- Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Pradyumna Kibe – Advocate for respondents/State.

ORDER

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 10/03/2023 (Annexure P/11) passed by respondent No.3 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement, the appellate order dated

26/07/2023 (Annexure P/13) passed by respondent No.2 modifying the punishment by withholding of one increment with cumulative effect and forfeiture of salary for the suspension period, and the order dated 13/06/2024 (Annexure P/15) passed by respondent No.1 rejecting the review petition

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that the petitioner was posted as Head Warder at Sub-Jail, Susner, District Shajapur at the relevant time. On 04/09/2020, an unfortunate incident occurred wherein an undertrial prisoner, namely Imran @ Anna, committed suicide inside the Sub-Jail premises. In connection with the said incident, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 08/09/2020.

3. Thereafter, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by respondent No.3 and a report dated 09/09/2020 was submitted to respondent No.2, wherein it was specifically recorded that no witness had deposed against the petitioner. Despite the said fact, a charge-sheet dated 14/10/2020 was issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted a detailed reply denying all allegations.

4. During the course of departmental enquiry, seven departmental witnesses were examined and cross-examined. It is an admitted position that none of the witnesses supported the charges levelled against the petitioner. The documents relied upon by the department were merely tendered and were not proved in accordance with law by examining competent witnesses.

5. After conclusion of evidence, written briefs were submitted by the Presenting Officer and the petitioner. However, the Enquiry Officer, by his report dated 09/09/2022, held the charges as proved by travelling beyond the scope of the charge-sheet and by relying upon material which was never part of the charges.

6. A show-cause notice dated 23/09/2022 was issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted a detailed reply. Ignoring the same, respondent No.3 imposed the major penalty of compulsory retirement vide order dated 10/03/2023. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal, which was partly allowed by modifying the punishment to withholding of one increment with cumulative effect and forfeiture of salary for the suspension period. The review petition filed by the petitioner was also rejected, giving rise to the present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire disciplinary action is vitiated as the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are based on no evidence. It was submitted that none of the departmental witnesses deposed against the petitioner and no document was proved in accordance with law.

8. It was further contended that the petitioner was admittedly on sanctioned leave from 01/09/2020 to 05/09/2020 and was not present on duty on the date of the incident i.e. 04/09/2020. The Enquiry Officer ignored this vital fact and proceeded on conjectures and surmises. It was also argued that the Enquiry Officer relied upon the preliminary enquiry report and jail records which were neither part of the charge- sheet nor proved during enquiry, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The disciplinary, appellate and reviewing authorities failed to apply their independent mind and mechanically affirmed the findings.

9. Per-contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents supported the impugned orders and submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with Rule 1