IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI WRIT PETITION NO. 23822 OF 2023 DHANPAT SINGH DIVAKAR Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri R.P.S. Kaurav, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Dilip Awasthi- GA for the respondents/State.

Shri Nitin Goyal- Advocate for respondents no. 2 and 3.

RESERVED ON: 08/12/2025 ORDER PASSED ON: 16/12/2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O R D E R

Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the enquiry report dated 16/4/2001 (Annexure P/6). He has further challenged the order dated 22/9/2001, whereby, he was dismissed from service on account of misconduct found proved in the departmental enquiry with further direction for recovery of amount under embezzlement. Petitioner has further challenged the order dated 5/4/2003 (Annexure P//11), whereby, his appeal against the punishment order was dismissed by the Board of Directors of respondent/ Corporation. The petitioner has also challenged the orders dated 8/11/2013 (Annexure P/15) and 17/8/2023 (Annexure P/17), whereby the dispute under Section 55 (2) read with Section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act has been decided against the petitioner. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction to respondents to provide him all consequential benefits.

2. Facts necessary for decision of this case are that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Accountant in M.P. State Cooperative Scheduled Castes Finance & Development Corporation at Datia. On account of certain acts of embezzlement of bank money, an FIR was lodged against him for offence under Sections 409, 467, 468, 420 & 478 of IPC. For the same set of allegations, a charge sheet was also issued to him on 12/8/1991 (Annexure P/1), whereby, following charge was levelled against him:-

“Jh fnokdj] ys[kkiky us vius Ikn dk dk;Z djrsa gq,s o"kZ 90&91 esa ftyk lfefr ds cSda [kkrk dzekad 229] ftyk dsUnzh; lgdkjh cSad nfr;k] 'kk[kk nfr;k ls dk;kZy; }kjk tkjh fd;s x;s fofHkUUk psdks esa jkf'k ck+dj 04 yk[k 16 gtkj :i;s vf/kd vkgj.k fd;k rFkk mls dk;kZy; esa tek u djds mDr jkf'k dk xcu fd;k gSA bl izdkj Jh Mh0 ,l0 fnokdj ys[kkiky foRrh; nqjkpj.k ,oa xcu ds nks"kh gS A”

3. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 27/8/1991. He denied the allegations levelled against him and shifted the burden upon the in-charge Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation and stated that he prepared the cheques in question on instructions from the Chief Executive Officer. He also requested for keeping the enquiry in abeyance on the ground that a criminal case on the same set of allegations is also pending. He also demanded certain documents on the basis of which, the charge was levelled against him.

4. Since the petitioner failed to give satisfactory explanation of the charge, the Deputy Collector, Datia was appointed as enquiry officer and the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation was appointed as presenting officer to conduct the departmental enquiry. It is gathered from the records that since the criminal case was pending in relation to same set of charge, wherein, the original record was seized by the Police, the enquiry officer kept the enquiry in abeyance awaiting outcome of the criminal case. The enquiry therefore, remained pending for a substantial period of time. In January’ 1999, when a new enquiry officer i.e. the then Deputy Collector, Datia, was appointed, he recommenced the enquiry based upon the photocopies available on record.

5. The enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer, wherein, prosecution witnesses were examined which included the then in-charge Chief Executive Officer- Shri S.R. Kaushal and three Cashiers working in District Cooperative Central Bank, Datia from where, the cheques were cleared. Petitioner was gra