1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

WRIT PETITION No.12832 OF 2023

NIRMAL SINGH CHAUHAN

Versus

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri D.P. Singh - learned counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Monika Mishra - learned Government Advocate for the

respondents/State.

Reserved on :12/02/2026

Delivered on :23/02/2026

ORDER

1.The petitioner has challenged order dated 20/12/2021 (Anneuxure-

P/1), whereby the punishment of withholding four increments with

cumulative effect was imposed on him by respondent no.3 on account of

certain misconduct found proved in the departmental enquiry. He has also

challenged order dated 02/05/2023 (Annexure-P/1), whereby his appeal

was partly allowed by respondent no.2 and major punishment was

substituted by a minor penalty of stoppage of two increments without

cumulative effect. The petitioner also challenges the charge-sheet dated

20/03/2020 (Annexure-P/9) being without jurisdiction.

2.The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner

was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in respondent-Tribal Welfare

2

Department. He was posted as Warden in Post-Matric Boys Hostel No.2,

3 & 4, Shriram Colony, Lashkar, Gwalior. He was thereafter, transferred

and posted as Warden in Boys Hostel, Behat, Gwalior.

3.With regard to his working as warden in Post-Matric Boys Hostel

No.2, 3 & 4, Shriram Colony, Lashkar, Gwalior, certain complaints of

financial irregularities were noticed. A preliminary enquiry was

conducted by a committee of six members who prima-facie found the

allegations correct. Accordingly, the Collector- respondent no.3 issued a

charge-sheet on 20/03/2020 thereby levelling three charges against the

petitioner. Charges related to using the amount of scholarship towards

maintenance and repairing of the hostel no.2, 3 & 4. It was, thus, alleged

that he misused the official funds. The petitioner submitted reply to the

charge-sheet on 24/07/2020 (Annexure-P/10) thereby denying the

allegations. He stated in his reply that the repairing and maintenance

work of hostel was carried out on account of complaints made by the

students before the Chief Minister and the same was got done on oral

instructions given from time to time by the Assistant Commissioner, Sub-

Engineer and the Deputy Collector. He also submitted that amount in

question is not used by him for his personal purpose but has been utilized

only for the betterment of the hostel.

4.In furtherance of the departmental enquiry, the Joint Collector was

appointed as Enquiry Officer while the Assistant Commissioner, Gwalior

was appointed as Presiding Officer. The enquiry was conducted and

thereafter, a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 05/10/2021

wherein he found charge no.1 & 3 as proved while charge no.2 as partly

proved.

3

5.Respondent no.3, thereafter, passed the impugned order dated

20/12/2021 thereby imposing major punishment of withholding of four

increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner. It was held that the

petitioner has withdrawn amount of scholarship and has used the same for

repairing of mess and hostel and also for other use of hostel. This was

found to be misuse of the Government funds and dereliction of duty on

the part of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the

punishment order before respondent no.2 who vide order dated

02/05/2023 (Annexure-P/1) though upheld the findings of guilt against

the petitioner, however, modified the major punishment inflicted by

respondent no.3 into a minor punishment of stoppage of two increments

without cumulative effect. Notably respondent no.2 rendered a finding

that respondent no.3 was competent to impose only minor punishment on

the petitioner and the major punishment inflicted by him is without

jurisdiction. He, accordingly, rectified the mistake by modifying major

punishment into a minor punishment. Challenging these orders passed by

respondents no.2 & 3, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

6.Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned action

initiated against the petitioner at the instance of respondent no.3 being

without jurisdiction. It is his submission that the respondent no.3 has been

empowered to inflict only minor punishment on Class-III & IV employee

vide notification dated 23/05/1996 (Annexure-P/12). It is his submission

that respondent no.3 was, therefore, not competent to initiate major

penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services Classification,

Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, (n short 'CCA Rules') against the

petitioner. He also argued that respondent no.3 erred in imposing major

4

punishment of withholding of four increments with cumulative effect

inasmuch as he was empowered only to inflict minor punishment. The

appellate order is also challenged stating that the respondent no.2 could

not have rectified the inherent lack of jurisdiction by substituting major

penalty by minor penalty. He also challenged the impugned punishment

on the ground that the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer

was never supplied to the petitioner which has caused serious prejudice to

him. He also challenged the appellate order passed by respondent no.2 on

the ground that respondent no.2 failed to consider the grounds raised by

the petitioner in his appeal and has only considered the issue of

competence of respondent no.2. He, thus, argued that the appellate order

passed by respondent no.2 is non-speaking and liable to be set-aside.

7.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the

respondents/State supported the impugned orders. It is her submission

that even though respondent no.3 was empowered to impose minor

punishment, he was competent to initiate major penalty proceedings

under Rule 14 of CCA Rules. Learned Government Advocate further

submitted that the mistake of imposing major punishment by respondent

no.3 has already been rectified by respondent no.2 by modifying the

punishment to a minor punishment. She, thus, submits that no illegality

has been committed by the authorities. Regarding non-supply of enquiry

report, learned Government Advocate submitted that mere non-supply of

the report would not vitiate the proceedings unless the petitioner

establishes prejudice that has been caused to him because of such non-

supply of the report. She also submitted that the factual findings recorded

in the departmental enquiry are not open to interference by this Court in

5

exercise of powers of judicial review and therefore, no interference is

warranted with the impugned orders. She, thus, prayed for dismissal of

the petition.

8.On other point is raised. Considered the arguments and perused the

record.

9. Based upon the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for

the respective parties following issues arise for consideration:

(i) Whether he respondent no.3 was competent to initiate major

penalty proceedings against the petitioner inasmuch as he is

empowered to impose minor penalty only vide notification

dated 23/05/1996?

(ii) Whether the modification of major penalty into minor

penalty by respondent no.2 is legal and valid?

(iii) Whether the order passed by respondent no.2 is non-

speaking inasmuch as it has considered the issue of

competence of respondent no.3 only without addressing the

grounds raised by petitioner in his appeal memo?

(vi) Whether, non-supply of the enquiry report to the petitioner

has vitiated the impugned punishment?

Issue no.i, ii & iii:

10. Under Rule 12 of CCA Rules, it is the power of Government

to impose on any Govt. servant, any penalty prescribed under Rule

10. The Governor may however empower any authority, by a general

or special order, to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 10.

Rule 12 (1) & (2), being relevant, is reproduced as under:-

6

“12. Disciplinary authorities. (1) The Government

may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 10

on any Government servant.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule

(1), but subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), any

of the penalties specified in Rule 10 may be imposed

on-

(a) member of State Civil Service by the appointing

authority or the authority specified in the Schedule

in this behalf or by any other authority empowered

in this behalf by a general or special order of the

Governor;

(b) a person appointed to a State Civil post by the

authority specified in this behalf by a general or

special order of the Governor, or [xxx] by the

appointing authority or the authority specified in the

Schedule in this behalf. ”

11. Thus, exercising powers under Rule 12(2)(a), the Collector has

been empowered to impose minor penalty on Class-III & IV employees of

the State Government vide notification dated 23/05/1996. Under the same

provision, the Divisional Commissioner has been empowered to impose

minor penalties on Class-I & II officers vide notification dated

10/01/1997. The objection of the petitioner is that, since the Collector

was empowered only to impose minor punishments, he could not have

initiated major penalty proceedings against the petitioner by way of

charge-sheet dated 20/03/2020.

12.Rule 2(d) defines “disciplinary authority” to mean the authority

competent under the rules to impose on a Government servant any of the

penalties specified in Rule 10. Thus, by virtue of notification dated

25/09/1996, since the Collector has been empowered to impose minor

penalties under Rule 10(i) to (iv), he becomes a disciplinary authority

7

within the meaning of Rule 2 (d) of CCA Rules.

13.Rule 13 of CCA Rules then prescribes authority to institute the

proceedings. The same reads as under:-

“13. Authority to institute proceedings. (1) The

Governor or any other authority empowered by him

by general or special order may-

(a) institute disciplinary proceedings against any

Government servant;

(b) direct a disciplinary authority to institute

disciplinary proceedings against any Government

servant on whom that disciplinary authority is

competent to impose under these rules any of the

penalties specified in Rule 10.

(2) A disciplinary authority competent under these

rules to impose any of the penalties specified in

clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 may institute

disciplinary proceedings against any Government

servant for the imposition of any of the penalties

specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10

notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is

not competent under these rules to impose any of the

latter penalties.”

14.Thus, by virtue of Rule 13(2) even though the Collector was

empowered to impose only minor penalties under Rule 10(i) to (iv), he

was competent to initiate major penalty proceedings also.

15.Rule 14 of the CCA Rules then prescribes the procedure for

imposing the penalties. Rule 14(21) provides as under:-

“14. Procedure for imposing penalties.-

xxx xxx xxx

(21)(a) Where a disciplinary authority competent to

impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i)

to (iv) of Rule 10 (but not competent to impose any

8

of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of

Rule 10); has itself inquired into or the articles of

any charge and that authority, having regard to its

own finding or having regard to its decision on any

of the findings of any inquiring authority appointed

by it, is of opinion that the penalties specified in

clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 should be imposed on

the Government servant, that authority shall forward

the records of the inquiry to such disciplinary

authority as is competent to impose the last

mentioned penalties.

(b) The disciplinary authority to which the records

are so forwarded may act on the evidence on the

record or may, if it is of the opinion that further

examination of any of the witnesses if necessary in

the interests of justice, recall the witness and

examine, cross-examine and re-examine the witness

and may impose on the Government servant such

penalty as it may deem fit in accordance with these

rules .”

16.Thus, conjoint reading of Rule 2(d), 12, 13 & 14(21) make it clear

that the Collector even if empowered to impose only minor penalty, was

competent to initiate major penalty proceedings against the petitioner.

However, after the conclusion of the enquiry, if he was of the opinion that

a major penalty is required to be imposed upon the petitioner, she was

required to transmit the records of enquiry to the authority competent to

9

impose major penalty. Having not done so, the imposition of major

penalty by the Collector himself was without jurisdiction. It is thus held

that the charge sheet issued by Collector against the petitioner was legal

and valid but the major punishment imposed by him was without

jurisdiction.

17.In the appeal filed before respondent no.2, respondent no.2

rectified the mistake committed by the Collector. Finding that since the

respondent no.3 was competent to impose only minor punishment, the

respondent no.2 modified the major penalty into a minor penalty. Being

the appellate authority, he was competent to do this. However, while

doing so, he failed to consider various grounds raised by the petitioner in

his appeal memo, and modified the punishment into a minor punishment

because the respondent no.3 was competent to impose minor penalty

only. While considering the appeal, the respondent no.2 was required to

address the grounds raised by petitioner in his appeal memo. Having

failed to do so, the appellate order also gets vitiated. Further, modifying

the major punishment into a minor one, only to legalise the illegality

committed by respondent no.3, ignoring the gravity of charges, is also not

acceptable. Thus, the order passed by respondent no.2 modifying the

major penalty into minor penalty is also found to unjustified and

unsustainable.

Issue no.iv:

18.It is not in dispute that after conclusion of the departmental enquiry

and submission of return brief by the Presenting Officer and the petitioner

before the Enquiry Officer, the Collector has passed the impugned order

dated 20/12/2021. Meaning thereby, the enquiry report, based upon which

10

the impugned punishment has been imposed, was not supplied to the

petitioner. The petitioner has raised specific ground in this regard in the

appeal before respondent no.2. However, the same was not considered in

the appellate order. In this petition also, a specific ground of non-supply

of enquiry report has been taken, however, the same is not rebutted by

respondents in their reply. Pertinently, the copy of the enquiry report is

not produced on record of this petition also.

19.The constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of ECIL v. B.

Karunakar, reported in (1993)4 SCC 727 has held that non-supply of

enquiry report violates principles of natural justice. The Court has held in

para 27 as under:-

"27. It will thus be seen that where the enquiry officer is

other than the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary

proceedings break into two stages. The first stage ends when

the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions on the

basis of the evidence, enquiry officer's report and the

delinquent employee's reply to it. The second stage begins

when the disciplinary authority decides to impose penalty on

the basis of its conclusions. If the disciplinary authority

decides to drop the disciplinary proceedings, the second

stage is not even reached. The employee's right to receive

the report is thus, a part of the reasonable opportunity of

defending himself in the first stage of the inquiry. If this

right is denied to him, he is in effect denied the right to

defend himself and to prove his innocence in the

disciplinary proceedings."

20.Considering the aforesaid, on account of non-supply of enquiry

report to the petitioner, the punishment inflicted on him by respondent

no.3 is even otherwise illegal and unsustainable in law. The order passed

by respondent no.2 is also unsustainable inasmuch as he also failed to

11

consider this important aspect of the matter and further failed to supply

copy of enquiry report to the petitioner.

21.As a result of the aforesaid discussion, order dated 20/12/2021

(Annexure-P/2) passed by respondent no.3 as also order dated 02/05/2023

(Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent no.2 are found to be unsustainable

in law and are, accordingly, set-aside. The matter is remitted to Collector-

respondent no.3 to take steps afresh from the stage of supply of copy of

enquiry report to the petitioner. After taking his explanation on the

findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, if respondent no.3 is of the

opinion that a major punishment is required to be imposed, he would

transmit the enquiry record to the authority who is competent under the

service rules to impose major penalty on the petitioner for further action

in the matter.

22.Let needful be done within a period of 90 days' from the date of

submission of certified copy of this order.

23. With the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of.

(ASHISH SHROTI)

JUDGE

rahul