IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI WRIT PETITION No.19351 OF 2022 DAYAL SINGH PARIHAR Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Santosh Agrawal– learned counsel and Smt. Padamshri Agrawal- learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri K.S. Tomar- learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

Reserved on : 05/02/2026 Delivered on : 17/02/2026

ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order, dated 26.07.2022, (Annexure P-1) whereby punishment of recovery of Rs.4,82,423/- has been imposed upon the petitioner. He has been also imposed with the punishment of censure.

2. The petitioner, during the period from 29.09.2015 to 30.11.2020, was posted as Range Assistant in Seondha Range, Forest Division, Datia. In relation to certain illegal excavation of the minerals, a charge- sheet under Rule 16 of The M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 was issued to the petitioner on 28.11.2020 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner gave detailed reply to this charge-sheet on 21.10.2021 (Annexure P-4) and, thereafter, the respondents have passed the impugned order on 25.07.2022, whereby the petitioner was found guilty of dereliction of duty, as a result of which loss of Rs.4,82,423/- was caused to the Government, which has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner. He was also censured. Challenging this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order of punishment on two grounds. Firstly, he submitted that since the petitioner raised disputed question of facts in his reply, a detailed departmental enquiry ought to have been conducted by the respondents under Rule 14 of CCA Rules. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of O.K. Bharadwaj Vs. Union of India & others reported in (2001)9 SCC 180. Secondly, he submitted that since the petitioner had already retired on 30.09.2020, the punishment order could not have been passed without the approval of the Governor in view of provisions of Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The learned counsel for the petitioner also challenged the finding recorded against him in the impugned order on merits. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that admittedly during the period from 29.09.2015 to 30.11.2020, the petitioner was posted as Range Assistant in Seondha Range, Forest Division, Datia, wherein illegal excavation of minerals were found. He further submitted that the petitioner has not disputed the fact that he was responsible for the safety and security of the forest range and, therefore, since the loss is caused to the Government during the period of his posting, he has been rightly imposed with the punishment of recovery of the amount of loss caused to the Government. He further submitted that the respondent Divisional Forest Officer was competent to impose punishment upon the petitioner.

5. Considered the arguments and perused the record.

6. Firstly, the ground raised by the counsel for the petitioner with regard to conduct of the detailed enquiry under Rule 14 of the the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 needs to be considered.

7. The Rule 16 of the CCA Rules provides for procedure for imposing minor penalties. Rule 16(1) reads as under:-

“1. Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 and Rule 11 shall be made except after-

(a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may