IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 15 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 19004 of 2021 NEEENDFRA SHRIVASTAVA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi- Senior Counsel with Shri Manish Gurjar -

Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Jitesh Sharma- Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order, dated

12.04.2018 (Annexure P/1) whereby punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect has been imposed upon him on account of certain misconduct found proved. He has also challenged order dated 04.02.2020 (Annexure P/2) whereby his appeal against the aforesaid punishment order was not accepted.

2 . At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Revenue Inspector and was posted in the office of Tehsildar, Tehsil Shivpuri (M.P.). A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 28.03.2018 (Annexure P/3) asking him to give his explanation with regard to allegations made therein. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 02.04.2018 (Annexure P/4) and thereafter the impugned orders came to be passed thereby imposing minor punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner has thus filed the present writ petition challenging the punishment orders.

3 . The learned senior counsel for the petitioner raised a singular ground that without conducting departmental enquiry, even a minor punishment could not have been imposed upon the petitioner. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India reported in (2001)9 SCC 180.

4 . On the other hand, counsel for the respondents refuted the submission made by petitioner's counsel and submitted that in view of the reply itself filed by the petitioner, the allegation levelled against him was established and, therefore, no enquiry was warranted. He further submitted that for imposing minor penalty, full-fledged departmental enquiry as prescribed under Rule 14 of The M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 is not warranted. He thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

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

6. Before examining the facts of this case, the objection raised by the petitioner's counsel regarding imposition of minor penalty without conducting departmental enquiry needs to be examined. He has placed reliance upon Apex Court judgment in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj (supra).

7. Considering the Apex Court judgment in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj (supra), the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Pratibha Mishra Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (W.A. No. 383 of 2022) has held in para-3.4 as under;

“3.4 (a) The decision of O.K.Bharadwaj Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180 is cited very often by the members of the Bar as the last sword in support of the contention that even if charge-sheet is for minor punishment, if the delinquent employee denies the charges which are factual in nature, then it is incumbent upon disciplinary authority to conduct full-fledged enquiry u/R.14 of the 1966 Rules failing which the order of punishment is vitiated in law.

3.4 (b) The aforesaid assumption in the considered opinion of this court is fallacious. The decision of O.K.Bharadwaj (S) was a case arising out of a judgment of Delhi High Court where the High Court while dismissing the petition of the employee held that since withholding of increments of pay with cumulative effect was a minor penalty under the relevant rules the need for full-fledged enquiry gets obviated. The Apex court in O.K.Bharadwaj (S) while upturning the decision of Delhi High court held otherwise. The crucial aspect which often misses the attention of members of the Bar, while relying upon O.K.Bharadwaj (S) is that the said case related to penalty of withholding of increment with cumulative