IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 25 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 4640 of 2010 SATYENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Versus STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri R. B. S. Tomar – learned counsel for petitioner.

Ms. Smrati Sharma – Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER

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

“7.1 That, the relieving order annexure P/1 dated 10-05-2010 passed by the respondent no. 2 & annexure P/2 dated 31-10-09 passed by the respondent no. 3 kindly be quashed.

7.2 That, the respondent kindly directed to release the increments of the petitioner and all the consequential benefit.

7.3 That, other relief doing justice including cost be ordered.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that by order dated 31.10.2019, five increments of petitioner was withheld with cumulative effect and it was also directed that she shall not be granted salary for the suspension period except subsistence allowance. It is further submitted that respondent No. 3 – the Collector has imposed a major penalty upon the petitioner, though respondent No. 3 has no jurisdiction to impose a major penalty as he is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority. The power delegated to respondent No. 3 is only to impose minor penalties upon Class III and Class IV employees and therefore, respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to impose a major penalty. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal; however, the appellate authority did not consider the aforesaid aspects and rejected the appeal. It is further submitted that this controversy has already been decided by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.03.2017 (Govind Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Others- W.P.4067/2011). The co-ordinate Bench in Govind Singh Yadav (supra) has held that Collector did not possess the power to impose major penalty.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State, while supporting the impugned order, opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is further submitted that the grounds raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition were not raised in the appeal; therefore, she prays for dismissal of the petition.

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

5. Perusal of record reveals that by order dated 31.10.2019, five increments of petitioner was withheld with cumulative effect and it was also directed that she shall not be granted salary for the suspension period except subsistence allowance.

Respondent No. 3 – the Collector has imposed a major penalty upon the petitioner, though respondent No. 3 has no jurisdiction to impose a major penalty as he is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority. The power delegated to respondent No. 3 is only to impose minor penalties upon Class III and Class IV employees and therefore, respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to impose a major penalty. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal; however, the appellate authority did not consider the aforesaid aspects and rejected the appeal.

6. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already considered the similar issue in Govind Singh Yadav (supra), relevant of which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:

The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide Notification No.C-6-7-96-3-1 dated 23rd May, 1996, published in M.P Rajpatra (Ext.) dated 10.01.1007, the State Govt. has delegated the powers to the Collector to exercise the powers under Rule 9 to suspend and Rule 10 to impose minor penalty on all the employees of Class III and Class IV of all the departments (except Police workers) posted in their District with effect from 23rd May, 1996. The Collector has exceeded the jurisdiction by imposing the major penalty which could not have been done. The Collector had only the jurisdiction to the extend of imposing m