Girja Shankar Gupta vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 311(2) - Departmental Enquiry - Principles of Natural Justice - Role of Enquiry Officer - The Enquiry Officer acts as a quasi-judicial authority and an independent adjudicator, not as a representative of the department. He must be wholly unbiased to ensure that justice is not only done but manifestly seen to be done. An inquiry is vitiated when the Enquiry Officer acts as a prosecutor or exhibits bias. (Paras 31, 32 and 40)

(B) Service Law - Role of Presenting Officer - The Presenting Officer occupies the position of a prosecutor. Participation of the Presenting Officer in rendering findings or joint signing of the inquiry report by the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer is impermissible, as the role of determining findings is the exclusive province of the Enquiry Officer. (Paras 33 and 37)

(C) Service Law - Competence of Disciplinary Authority - Where multiple sets of service rules exist for similar posts, the applicable rules are determined by the specific pay scale, requisite qualifications, and the appointing authority. (Paras 26 and 27)

Facts of the case:
An employee appointed as Superintendent was subjected to a departmental inquiry following allegations of securing employment through false documents. The petitioner challenged the competence of the Dean to issue the charge-sheet and the validity of the inquiry process. It was observed that the charge-sheet and the final ex-parte inquiry report were jointly signed by the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer. The petitioner further alleged non-supply of essential documents and lack of a fair opportunity to defend the charges.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner was governed by the autonomous college rules rather than the super specialty hospital rules, making the Dean the competent authority to initiate disciplinary action. However, the court held that the inquiry process was severely flawed. The joint signing of the charge-sheet and the inquiry report by both the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer demonstrated a lack of impartiality and a breach of the fundamental distinction between the adjudicator and the prosecutor.

Issues: (i) Whether the Dean of the college was the competent authority to issue the charge-sheet under the applicable service rules. (ii) Whether the departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, specifically regarding the impartiality of the Enquiry Officer.

Ratio Decidendi: A departmental inquiry must be conducted by an unbiased person who does not act as the prosecutor. When an Enquiry Officer colludes with the Presenting Officer—evidenced by joint signatures on the charge-sheet and the final report—the proceedings are vitiated. Such conduct violates the principles of natural justice and the mandate of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, as the adjudicator cannot be the prosecutor.

Result: petition stands partly allowed and disposed of.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Disciplinary proceedings for alleged appointment based on false documents — Challenge to charge-sheet and inquiry report. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )

2. Petitioner contended Dean lacked competence and inquiry was biased; respondents argued Dean was competent and inquiry impartial. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )

3. Inquiry quashed; Dean directed to proceed from charge-sheet stage with proper inquiry. (Para 43 , 44 )

4. Which rules govern disciplinary action against a Superintendent in a Super Specialty Hospital?

The Superintendent appointed in pay scale under Autonomous College Rules is governed by those rules, making the Dean the competent disciplinary authority. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )

5. Can an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer jointly issue charge-sheet and submit inquiry report?

No, an Enquiry Officer must be impartial and independent; joint action with Presenting Officer violates natural justice and vitiates proceedings. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 )

6. Must charges in a departmental inquiry be proved by evidence led by the Presenting Officer?

Yes, charges must be proved by evidence; failure to lead evidence and the Enquiry Officer relying on unproved documents vitiates the inquiry. (Para 38 )

ORDER :

The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for the following reliefs.

"i. That, the charge-sheet dated 30-10-2025 issued against the petitioner and its consequential proceedings may kindly be quashed, and/or;

ii. That, the respondents be directed to Restore the charge of Superintendent in the favor of petitioner, and/or iii. That, the enquiry officer be directed to submit all the documents annexed with the charge sheet duly certified by the issuing officer.

iv. That, the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to peruse his original recruitment file and the entire record of his recruitment be supplied to the petitioner duly certified by the Dean GRMC Gwalior

v. Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.

vi. That the inquiry report Annexure-P/19 prepared by the respondents may kindly be quashed."

[2]. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was appointed as Superintendent (Adhikshak) in Super Speciality Hospital namely- Gajara Raje Medical College (GRMC), Gwalior-respondent no.3 (hereinafter referred as 'College') on 06.08.2019, (Annexure P/1). He has been working as such on the said post.

[3]. It appears that some complaint was received with regard to the petitioner securing appointment based upon false documents. For the purposes of decision of this case, it is sufficient to mention that initially a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.7.2025 asking him to submit his explanation within 10 days in respect of aforesaid allegation regarding his appointment. The petitioner submitted his response. He made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, whereby he sought documents relating to his recruitment vide application dated 30.07.2025. As per the petitioner’s submission, he made repeated applications to the Dean of the College as also to the Enquiry Officer asking for documents regarding his recruitment which are questioned in the show-cause notice. However, the documents are not yet supplied to him.

[4]. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.4, Dr. K.P. Ranjan, who is working as Professor, Microbiology Department in the College, has been appointed as Enquiry Officer, while respondent no.5, Shri Anil Shastya, working as Associate Professor, Anatomy Department of the College, has been appointed as Presenting Officer. Earlier, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 21.11.2025 in (Annexure P/6), which was issued with the joint signatures of Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer i.e. respondent no.4 & 5. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply to the charge-sheet within 10 days. The petitioner again made an application before the Enquiry Officer seeking the documents on the basis of which the charges have been framed, vide application dated 01.12.2025. Later on, the Enquiry Officer furnished a letter, dated 16.12.2025 (Annexure P/12), wherein he withdrew the charge-sheet dated 21.11.2025 on the ground that the Dean of the College has already issued a charge-sheet to him on 30.10.2025. A copy of the charge-sheet dated 30.10.2025, stated to have been issued by the Dean, was also supplied to the petitioner alongwith the said letter. The petitioner immediately responded to the said letter on 18.12.2025, specifically denying the fact that the charge-sheet dated 30.10.2025 was ever served to him. He again requested for supply of relevant documents.

[5]. It is gathered from the records that the Enquiry Officer asked the petitioner to participate in the inquiry, and the petitioner adhered to his request for supply of documents and accordingly did not participate in the inquiry. Ultimately, the Enquiry Officer has concluded the enquiry ex-parte and submitted his report dated 31.12.2025 before the Dean of the College. The Dean furnished the copy of the report to the petitioner vide letter dated 05.01.2026 (Annexure P/19). The petitioner has been asked to furnish his explanation to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer wit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 639

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
ASHISH SHROTI, J.
Dr. Girja Shankar Gupta - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 50553 of 2025
Decided On : 17-02-2026

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Which rules govern disciplinary action against a Superintendent in a Super Specialty Hospital?

5. Can an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer jointly issue charge-sheet and submit inquiry report?

6. Must charges in a departmental inquiry be proved by evidence led by the Presenting Officer?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 639

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIORASHISH SHROTI, J.Dr. Girja Shankar Gupta - PetitionerVersusThe State of Madhya Pradesh and Others - RespondentsWrit Petition No. 50553 of 2025Decided On : 17-02-2026

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Which rules govern disciplinary action against a Superintendent in a Super Specialty Hospital?

5. Can an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer jointly issue charge-sheet and submit inquiry report?

6. Must charges in a departmental inquiry be proved by evidence led by the Presenting Officer?

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
ASHISH SHROTI, J.
Dr. Girja Shankar Gupta - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 50553 of 2025
Decided On : 17-02-2026