NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

1

WP-50553-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

WRIT PETITION No. 50553 of 2025

DR. GIRJA SHANKAR GUPTA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Dharmendra Nayak- Govt. Advocate for the State.

Shri D.P. Singh- Advocate for the respondent no.3

Shri Chandra Prakash Sharma- Advocate for the respondent no.4 &

5.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on : 29-01-2026

Pronounced on : 17-02-2026

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O R D E R

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

2

WP-50553-2025

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

3

WP-50553-2025

[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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

4

WP-50553-2025

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 within seven days. A perusal of the inquiry report shows that the

same has been prepared under the joint signatures of Enquiry Officer

and Presenting Officer i.e. respondent no.4 & 5.

[6].The petitioner has challenged the very initiation of the enquiry as

also the subsequent conduct of the departmental enquiry and the report

submitted by the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. The challenge

has been made on the ground that:

"(i) The charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner

by the Dean of the college, who is not competent to

issue the same, inasmuch as under the Rules of 2018,

it is the Commissioner, Medical Education, who is

competent to issue the charge-sheet.

(ii) The action has been initiated from the inception by

the respondents with a predetermined mind.

(iii) The charge-sheet was initially issued by the

Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer, which has

been subsequently withdrawn on the ground that the

charge-sheet was already issued by the Dean of the

college. The inquiry report has also been submitted

with the joint signatures of the Inquiry Officer and the

Presenting Officer, which shows that the action taken

against the petitioner is not impartial.

(iv) The charge-sheet dated 30-10-2025, said to have

been issued by the Dean of the college, was never

served to the petitioner and has been served for the

first time along with the memo dated 16.12.2025,

whereby the Inquiry Officer withdrew the charge-sheet

issued by him earlier.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

5

WP-50553-2025

(v) The documents on the basis of which the charges

have been framed against the petitioner are not

supplied to him, despite repeated requests.

(vi) The petitioner has also not been permitted to

peruse the original file regarding his recruitment.

(vii) The inquiry report was not served upon the

petitioner by the Inquiry Officer; rather, he submitted

it to the Dean of the college, who has forwarded the

copy of the report to the petitioner."

[7].Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length regarding the

impugned action initiated against the petitioner. He referred to the

proceedings of the Executive Committee held on 12.07.2025, wherein

the matter regarding initiation of action against the petitioner was

resolved to be placed before the Saadhikar Samiti. He further submitted

that on the same day i.e. on 12.07.2025, Saadhikar Samiti resolved to

initiate action against the petitioner for his removal from service. He

thus submitted that the decision has already been taken to remove the

petitioner from service and, therefore, the entire action initiated is an

eyewash. Learned counsel referred to the proceedings of Saadhikar

Samiti dated 12.07.2025 to show that the quorum of the Samiti was not

complete. As submitted by him, out of six members, three were absent.

The petitioner was the fourth member. Thus, in substance, the

proceedings were signed by two members only, one of whom was the

Dean, who is already prejudiced against the petitioner. Learned counsel

thus submitted that for want of quorum of the Sadhikar Samiti, the

resolution dated 12.07.2025 is illegal and cannot be acted upon.

[8].Learned counsel for the petitioner then referred to Madhya

Pradesh Super Specialty Hospital Chikitsa Shikshak Seva Niyam, 2018,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

6

WP-50553-2025

( in short “Super Specialty Hospital Rules of 2018”) to say that the Dean

is not the competent authority for purposes of taking disciplinary action

against the petitioner. Rather, under Rule 11.4 of these Rules, it is the

Divisional Commissioner who is the competent authority. He further

submitted that vide notification dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure P/22), the

Divisional Commissioner has been substituted by the Commissioner of

Public Health & Medical Education Department, as the authority

competent to take action against the petitioner. He thus submitted that

the entire initiation of inquiry by the Dean of the College, including the

charge-sheet dated 30.10.2025, is without jurisdiction and cannot be

proceeded with.

[9].Learned counsel for the petitioner further questioned the

impartiality of the Enquiry Officer and submitted that respondent no.4,

who is appointed as Enquiry Officer, has been acting in collusion with

respondent no.5 i.e. the Presenting Officer. To substantiate his

arguments, he submitted that initially, on 21.11.2025, a charge-sheet was

served upon the petitioner with the joint signatures of respondent no.4 &

5. As per his submission, the Enquiry Officer is not competent to issue

charge sheet unless he is also the disciplinary authority. He further

argued that the enquiry report submitted on 31.12.2025 is again signed

by respondent no.4 & 5, which shows that the Enquiry Officer is not

impartial and acting in collusion with the Presenting Officer. Learned

counsel also argued that despite repeated demands made by the

petitioner to the Dean of the College as also to the Enquiry Officer, the

necessary documents which are referred to in the charge-sheet, are not

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

7

WP-50553-2025

supplied to him, nor was he permitted to peruse the original file

regarding his recruitment. It is his submission that the petitioner has not

been afforded adequate opportunity of defending himself in the inquiry.

Learned counsel thus prayed for quashment of the entire proceedings,

including the charge-sheet and the enquiry report submitted by

respondent no.4 & 5.

[10].On the other hand, Shri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent

no.3, supported the action taken against the petitioner. He vehemently

argued that there is a serious charge of securing employment on the

basis of false documents levelled against the petitioner, which is

required to be inquired into. As per his submission, the petitioner has

successfully avoided participating in the enquiry under the garb of non-

supply of necessary documents whereas the documents demanded by

him have already been supplied to the petitioner during the course of

enquiry.

[11].Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is not

governed by the Super Specialty Hospital Rules of 2018, but is

governed by the Madhya Pradesh Swashasi Chikitsa Mahavidyalaya

Chikitskiya Seva Adarsh Niyam, 2018 (in short “Autonomous College

Rules of 2018”) wherein under Rule 13.4, the Dean of the College is the

authority competent to take disciplinary action against the petitioner.

Learned counsel submitted that the Super Specialty Rules of 2018 are

applicable only to Medical Teachers, whereas the petitioner does not

belong to the said category and therefore is governed by the

Autonomous College Rules of 2018. He thus submitted that under the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

8

WP-50553-2025

Autonomous College Rules of 2018, the matter is not even required to

be placed before the Saadhikar Samiti.

[12].The learned counsel further justified the resolution passed by the

Saadhikar Samiti on 12.07.2025. He also submitted that the Enquiry

Officer as also the Presenting Officer are basically the doctors by

profession and are not well-versed with the disciplinary enquiry

procedure. It is only an act of omission that the charge-sheet and inquiry

report were issued under the joint signatures of respondent no.4 & 5. As

per his submission, the entire disciplinary proceedings have been

impartially conducted by respondent no.4 alone, and mere signing of the

report by the Presenting Officer would not vitiate the proceedings.

Learned counsel also submitted that since the Dean of the College had

already issued the charge-sheet on 30.10.2025, the charge-sheet

erroneously issued under the joint signatures of respondent no.4 & 5 on

21.11.2025 was rightly withdrawn on 16.12.2025. He, therefore,

submitted that since the petitioner failed to participate in the

departmental enquiry without any justification, the Enquiry Officer was

constrained to proceed ex parte against him and to submit ex parte

report. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner still has

opportunity to put forth his case by submitting reply to the show-cause

notice issued by the Dean of the College on 05.01.2026.

[13].Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 also placed reliance upon

the Apex Court judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs.

Bhupendra Singh reported in 2024 SCC Online 1908 with regard to the

scope of interference of this Court in the disciplinary matters.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

9

WP-50553-2025

[14].Sri C.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 &

5, adopted the arguments of counsel for respondent no.3. In addition, he

submitted that the entire proceedings have been conducted by the

Enquiry Officer impartially and merely because the report is signed by

the Presenting Officer also, does not vitiate the proceedings.

[15].No other point is pressed by counsel for respective parties.

[16].Considered the arguments and perused the record.

[17].Before adverting to the facts of this case and the issues raised by

learned counsel for the parties, it is profitable to mention here that the

enquiry initiated against the petitioner is still not complete and the

petitioner has been called upon to submit his explanation to the findings

recorded in the departmental enquiry. The petitioner alleges non-supply

of documents while the respondents alleges that the relevant documents

are already supplied to him. This becomes a factual dispute which needs

to be addressed by the disciplinary authority while considering the

response of petitioner to the enquiry report. Therefore, the lengthy

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to

non-supply of documents and denial of opportunity of hearing are

premature at this stage and does not call for consideration by this Court.

The petitioner is extended liberty to raise these grounds at appropriate

stage before appropriate authority. Thus, the consideration in this order

is confined to the challenge to the charge-sheet on the ground of

competence of Dean and validity of the enquiry conducted by the

Enquiry Officer i.e. respondent no.4.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

10

WP-50553-2025

[18].Competence of Dean to issue charge sheet:

The learned counsel for the petitioner rely upon Super Specialty

Hospital Rules of 2018 to say that the Commissioner, Medical

Education is the competent authority by virtue of Rule 11.4 and

therefore the charge-sheet issued by Dean of the College and the enquiry

conducted pursuant to such charge sheet, is without competence and

illegal.

[19].On the other hand, as per submission of learned counsel for

respondent no.3, the petitioner is governed by the Autonomous College

Rules of 2018. Under these rules, by virtue of Rule 13.4, the Chief

Executive Officer/Dean of the College is the competent authority to take

disciplinary action against the petitioner.

[20].Therefore, the issue for consideration is as to which Rules are

applicable in the present case.

[21].As per its Rule 2.1, the Super Specialty Hospital Rules of 2018

are applicable on the Medical Teachers appointed from time to time in

autonomous colleges. Rule 2.1, being relevant in this regard, is

reproduced hereunder:

“;s fu;e ljdkj ds fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx }kjk le;≤ ij

Lok'kklh egkfo|k;y ds v/khu lqij Lis'kfyVh vLirky ds fy,

Loh—r fpfdRlk f'k{kd ds inksa ds laca/k esa ykxw gksaxs A”

[22].The term “Medical Teacher” is defined under Rule 3.5 as:

“fpfdRlk f'k{kd ls vfHkçsr gS vuqlwph&,d esa fofufnZ"V fdlh in

ds fo#) fu;qä O;fäA”

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

11

WP-50553-2025

[23].Thus, a joint reading of Rules 2.1 & 3.5 reveals that the rules are

applicable on the persons holding the posts named in Schedule-1 of

these Rules. Rule 4.1 classify the posts and the salary for the said post as

prescribed in Schedule-I while Rule 4.3 provides for the requisite

qualifications for appointment on the post as prescribes in Schedule-II.

A perusal of Schedule-1 shows that there is one post of Superintendent

which carries monthly lumpsum fixed pay of Rs.3 lakh. Further,

Schedule-II prescribe requisite qualification for the post of

Superintendent as Post Graduation Degree from recognized Medical

College/Institute and 10 years administrative experience.

[24].Likewise, as per its Rule 2.1, the Autonomous College Rules of

2018 are applicable on Medical, Para-Medical and Nursing Staff of

autonomous Colleges which are sanctioned by Govt. of Madhya Pradesh

from time to time. Rule 2.1 reads as under:

“2- ç;qfä&

2-1 ;s fu;e e/;çns'k 'kklu ds fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx }kjk

le;≤ ij Lo'kklh fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ds fy, Loh—r

fpfdRldh;] ifjpkfjdk ,oa lg fpfdRldh; inksa ds laca/k esa ykxw

gksaxs”

[25].The classification of various posts, their pay scales are given in

Section- A of Schedule-I while requisite qualification for the posts is

given in Section-A of Schedule-III. A perusal of Section-A of Schedule-

1 shows that there are 3 posts of Superintendent which carries Pay Band

of 15600-39100 + 5400 GP. Further, Section-A of Schedule-III prescribe

requisite qualifications for the post of Superintendent as M.B.B.S.

Degree, Degree/Diploma in Hospital Management/Administration &

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

12

WP-50553-2025

experience of having worked on the post of Superintendent in any

Govt./Private Hospital.

[26].It is thus seen that the post of Superintendent is available under

both set of Rules, however, the pay scale/salary attached to this post as

also the requisite qualifications are different for this post under different

rules. For convenience, the comparative table of post of Superintendent

under both the Rules is given hereunder:

Name of

Rules

Name of Post Pay Scale/Pay Requisite

Qualification

Super

Specialty

Hospital

Rules of

2018.

SuperintendentRs.3 lakh

lumpsum per

month

Post-Graduation

Degree from

recognized

Medical

College/Institute

and 10 years

administrative

experience.

Autonom

ous

College

Rules of

2018.

Superintendent15600-39100+

5400 GP

M.B.B.S.

Degree, Hospital

Management/Ad

ministration

Degree/Diploma

& experience of

having worked

on the post of

Superintendent

in any

Govt./Private

Hospital.

[27].The petitioner was appointed as Superintendent vide order, dated

06.08.2019, (Annexure P/1) in the Pay Band of 15600-39100 + 5400

GP. Pertinently, the appointment order has been issued by CEO/Dean of

the College who is the appointing authority under Rule 3(छ) of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

13

WP-50553-2025

Autonomous College Rules of 2018. The petitioner is thus governed by

Autonomous College Rules of 2018 and not by Super Speciality

Hospital Rules of 2018.

[28].As per Rule 13.4 of Autonomous College Rules of 2018,

CEO/Dean of the College is the authority competent to take disciplinary

action against the petitioner while the Executive Committee is the

Appellate Authority. The CEO/Dean of the College was thus competent

to take disciplinary action and issue charge sheet against the petitioner.

Further, it is seen that under Autonomous College Rules of 2018, there

is no requirement to place the matter before the Sadhikar Samiti and,

therefore, even if there was any defect in constitution of Samiti on

12.07.2025, the same is inconsequential inasmuch as the Dean himself

was competent to take a decision regarding taking of disciplinary action

against the petition.

[29].In view of the aforesaid discussion, the challenge to the enquiry

and the charge sheet on the ground of competence of Dean of the

College is not acceptable. The objection raised in this regard by

petitioner's counsel is thus rejected.

[30].Service of charge sheet to the petitioner:

The charge sheet issued by Dean on 30.10.2025 has been

challenged on the ground that the same was never served to the

petitioner and the same was served by Enquiry Officer vide letter, dated

16.12.2025. In this regard, it is seen that the petitioner has raised a

specific objection in this regard in the writ petition as also in response to

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

14

WP-50553-2025

letter, dated 16.2.2025. However, the respondent no.3 has failed to

produce any document to show that the charge sheet dated 30.10.2025,

was served to the petitioner before it was served to him by Enquiry

Officer vide letter, dated 16.12.2025.

[31].Validity of enquiry conducted by respondent no.4:

It is a cardinal principle of law that an employee is required to be

treated fairly in any proceedings which may culminate into imposition

of punishment. The petitioner has contended that the Enquiry Officer

has acted in collusion with the Presenting Officer and was not impartial.

Before dealing with this objection on facts of this case, it is profitable to

refer to certain judgments of Apex Court dealing with the status and

duties of an Enquiry Officer. The role of an Enquiry Officer and his

duties in departmental enquiry has been discussed by Apex Court in the

case of State of U.P. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010)2 SCC

772, and held thus:

"28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial

authority is in the position of an independent

adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of

the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His

function is to examine the evidence presented by the

Department, even in the absence of the delinquent

official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is

sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the

present case the aforesaid procedure has not been

observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the

documents have not been proved, and could not have

been taken into consideration to conclude that the

charges have been proved against the respondents.

29. Apart from the above, by virtue of Article 311(2) of

the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry had

to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

15

WP-50553-2025

justice. It is a basic requirement of the rules of natural

justice that an employee be given a reasonable

opportunity of being heard in any proceedings which

may culminate in punishment being imposed on the

employee.

30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against

the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual

exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be

conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to

be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are

required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is

done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of

rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government

servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may

culminate in imposition of punishment including

dismissal/removal from service."

[32].In a departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer is in the position of

a judge while Presenting Officer is in the position of a prosecutor. A

departmental enquiry must be held by an unbiased person who is

unconnected with the incident. He is expected to be impartial and

objective in deciding the subject-matters of inquiry. He should have an

open mind till the inquiry is completed and should neither act with bias

nor give an impression of bias. However, when Enquiry Officer acts like

a prosecutor, the enquiry vitiates. This has been so held by Division

Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. Naseem Siddiqui

reported in 2004 SCC OnLine MP 678:

"One of the fundamental principles of natural justice is

that no man shall be a judge in his own cause. This

principles consists of seven well recognised facets : (i)

The adjudicator shall be impartial and free from bias,

(ii) The adjudicator shall not be the prosecutor; (iii) The

complainant shall not be an adjudicator; (iv) A witness

cannot be the Adjudicator. (v) The Adjudicator must not

import his personal knowledge of the facts of the case

while inquiring into charges, (vi) The Adjudicator shall

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

16

WP-50553-2025

not decide on the dictates of his superiors or others, (vii)

The Adjudicator shall decide the issue with reference to

material on record and not with reference to extraneous

material or on extraneous considerations. If any one of

these fundamental rules is breached, the inquiry will be

vitiated.

*** *** ***

A domestic inquiry must be held by an unbiased person

who is unconnected with the incident so that he can be

impartial and objective in deciding the subject matters of

inquiry. He should have an open mind till the inquiry is

completed and should neither act with bias nor give an

impression of bias. Where the Inquiry’ Officer acts as the

Presenting Officer, bias can be presumed. At all events,

it clearly gives an impression of bias. An Inquiry Officer

is in position of a Judge or Adjudicator. The Presenting

Officer is in the position of a Prosecutor. If the Inquiry

Officer acts as a Presenting Officer, then it would

amount to Judge acting as the persecutor. When the

Inquiry Officer conducts the examination-in-chief of the

prosecution witnesses and leads them through the facts

so as to present the case of the disciplinary authority

against the employee or cross-examines the delinquent

employee or his witnesses to establish the case of the

employer/disciplinary authority, evidently, the Inquiry

Officer cannot be said to have an open mind. The very

fact that he presents the case of the employer and

supports case of the employer is sufficient to hold that

the Inquiry Officer does not have an open mind."

[33].Thus, an Enquiry Officer is expected to be impartial and free from

bias. He should act independently without being influenced by and shall

not decide on the dictates of, anyone else. As observed by Division

Bench of this Court, the Enquiry Officer should not act as Prosecutor.

Conversely also, the Presenting Officer should also not be allowed to

discharge the job of Enquiry Officer as is done in this case.

[34].The respondent no.4 is the Enquiry Officer while respondent no.5

is the Presenting Officer in relation to the enquiry conducted against the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

17

WP-50553-2025

petitioner. After their so appointment, initially, a charge sheet was

served to the petitioner vide letter, dated 21.11.2025, which was jointly

signed by respondent no.4 & 5 i.e. by Enquiry Officer and the

Presenting Officer. This is unusual and impermissible. Unless the

Enquiry Officer himself is the disciplinary authority, charge sheet cannot

be issued by Enquiry Officer and further it can never be issued with the

signature of Presenting Officer.

[35].This charge sheet, dated 21.11.2025, was subsequently withdrawn

by Enquiry Officer vide letter, dated 16.12.2025, under the pretext that a

charge sheet has already been issued to petitioner by the Dean of the

College on 30.10.2025. This is again unusual inasmuch as an Enquiry

Officer is appointed after issuance of charge sheet and he is provided

with a copy of charge sheet to enquire into. However, in this case, it is

evident that the charge sheet issued by Dean was not even supplied to

the Enquiry Officer and that is why he issued his own charge sheet.

Subsequently, when the charge sheet issued by Dean was supplied to

him, the Enquiry Officer withdrew charge sheet issued by him.

[36].Yet another unusual event occurred in this case is that the charge

sheet dated 30.10.2025, issued by Dean is served to the petitioner

alongwith letter, dated 16.12.2025, by the Enquiry Officer. As already

observed hereinabove, the charge sheet issued by Dean on 30.10.2025

was not served to the petitioner earlier.

[37].The unusual events in this case does not end here. After

completing ex-parte enquiry, the enquiry report is submitted to the Dean

on 31.12.2025 which is again jointly signed by respondent no.4 & 5 i.e.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

18

WP-50553-2025

Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. This is unacceptable inasmuch

as signing of report by the Presenting Officer would only mean that he is

instrumental in recording of findings against the petitioner. In a

departmental enquiry, the role of Presenting Officer is that of a

prosecutor and, therefore, he cannot be allowed to participate in

rendering findings against the delinquent which is and should be the

exclusive role of Enquiry Officer. The report, dated 31.12.2025, is

therefore, not acceptable on this ground also.

[38].The learned counsel for respondent no.3 produced the enquiry

record, in original, conducted by respondent no.4. A bare perusal of the

same shows that, even though the petitioner shown as present in

proceedings, the same is not signed by petitioner but are signed by

respondent no.4 & 5 only. Further, after notice of proceedings to

petitioner, the proceedings were held on 05.12.2025, 18.12.2025,

23.12.2025 & 29.12.2025. All the proceedings only narrates the non-

cooperation on the part of petitioner. However, in none of the

proceedings, the case was presented by Presenting Officer to establish

the charges and proceedings were closed on 29.12.2025. Two days

thereafter, the report is submitted. It is thus seen that no evidence was

led by Presenting Officer to prove the charges and the Enquiry Officer

of his own recorded finding referring to various documents. As observed

above, the charge sheet is served to the petitioner on 16.12.2025 and

final report is submitted on 31.12.2025. The charges have been held

proved against the petitioner, but without there being any evidence led

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

19

WP-50553-2025

by Presenting Officer. This again demonstrates that the principles of

natural justice have been given complete goby in this case.

[39].The learned counsel for respondent no.3 as also counsel for

respondent no.4 & 5 tried to convince this Court stating that the enquiry

is conducted by Enquiry Officer without being influenced by Presenting

Officer or anybody else. It is contended that the respondent no.4 & 5 are

the doctors by profession and are not aware about the intricate procedure

of departmental enquiry. This is no less serious than an Enquiry Officer

being bias. Conducting enquiry by a person who is not versed with the

procedure, is again a serious lapse in the enquiry inasmuch as the

findings rendered by such person are ultimately going to be the basis of

taking action against the delinquent.

[40].By virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, the

departmental enquiry has to be conducted in accordance with the rules

of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice

that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in

any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on

the employee. A departmental enquiry conducted against a Government

servant cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings

also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The Enquiry Officer has

to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be

observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to

be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a

Government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may

culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5950

20

WP-50553-2025

from service. However, as discussed above, the principles of natural

justice are breached at every stage in this case, right from the issuance

of charge sheet till submission of report by Enquiry Officer.

[41].Accordingly, the judgment of Apex Court in the case of

Bhupendra Singh (supra) is of no assistance of respondent no.3.

[42].In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered

opinion that, even though Dean of the College is competent to take

disciplinary action against the petitioner, however, the action taken by

him right from the stage of service of charge sheet is vitiated and cannot

be given stamp of approval by this Court.

[43].Consequently, the entire exercise conducted by respondent no.4 &

5 are quashed. The Dean shall proceed with the enquiry from the stage

of service of charge-sheet. If required, he shall conduct the enquiry

himself, else shall appoint an incumbent as Enquiry Officer who is well

versed with the enquiry proceedings. Needless to mention, the petitioner

is entitled to get copy of documents which are being relied upon to

establish the charges against him. Further, he is entitled to receive the

copy of those documents which he establish to be relevant.

[44].With the aforesaid, the petition stands partly allowed and disposed

of.

(ASHISH SHROTI)

JUDGE

Vpn/-