Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balaram Malviya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34362
1 WP-42723-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 18th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 42723 of 2025
BALARAM MALVIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Abhishek Tugnawat and Mr. Chetal Soni, counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Raghav Shrivastava, counsel for the respondents/State.
ORDER
In the instant petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner [who was working on the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Guradiyalalmuha, District-Mandsaur (MP)] has challenging the impugned order of termination dated 21.04.2022 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated from the post of Secretary of Gram Panchayat on the ground of his conviction by a criminal Court of law. The aforesaid order has been passed in exercise of powers under Rule 7 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (herein after referred to as the Rules of 1999).
2. The facts of the case in nutshell are as under: -
The petitioner initially appointed as Secretary in Gram Panchayat, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN NAIR Signing time: 11/28/2025 2:50:15 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34362 2 WP-42723-2025 Guradiyalalmuha, District-Mandsaur (MP) in the year 30.10.1995 and was performing his work very efficiently and diligently. All of a sudden, one fine day some unknown person has made a complaint against the petitioner regarding the irregularities and illegalities committed by him by giving benefit in the scheme called Panchparmeshwar Yojna. Thereafter, a case has been registered against the petitioner in which conviction order is passed on 12.04.2022 on account of which he was punished for a period of five years.
Later on, the services of the petitioner was terminated by respondent No.2 vide order dated 21.04.2022 that too without hearing the petitioner and without holding any enquiry. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court by filing the writ petition which was disposed of by this court by giving the direction to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner, Ujjain. It is further stated that the petitioner has filed the appeal before the Commissioner, Ujjain and the same was dismissed vide order order dated 23.06.2025. Hence, prays for reinstatement of the petitioner on the said post.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of termination has been passed without holding an enquiry, as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents - State supported the impugned order and submitted that since the petitioner was convicted by a Court of law, and therefore, the Authority has passed the order of removal from services and the Authority was of the view that an enquiry is not reasonably practicable. A reliance has been made on Article 311 (2) (b) of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN NAIR Signing time: 11/28/2025 2:50:15 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34362 3 WP-42723-2025 the Constitution of India.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the order does not record any satisfaction of the Authority that the Departmental Enquiry is not practicably possible. The order impugned simply states that the services of the petitioner are terminated on the ground of his conviction in the Court of law. Rule 10 of the Rules of 1999 confers powers to the Disciplinary Authority notwithstanding of the Rules 7, 8 and 9 of the Rules of 1999.
6. Rule 10 of the Rules of 1999 reads, as under: -
"10. Special procedure in certain cases.
(1) Notwithstanding any thing contained in Rules 7, 8 and 9,-
(i) where a penalty is imposed on a Panchayat Servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or ( i i ) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the said rules, the Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case of pass such orders thereon as it deems fit."
7. If the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1999 are considered, to some extent these rules are akin to Rule 19 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. If the Authority has failed to record the reasons that an enquiry is not practicably possible, then the Authority has to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 or Rule 10 of the Rules of 1999.
8. In the present case, the Authority has completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed either under Rule 7 or under Rule 10 of the Rules Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN NAIR Signing time: 11/28/2025 2:50:15 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34362 4 WP-42723-2025 of 1999.
9. In case of Narayan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2013 (1) MPWN 70 , on the similar circumstances, this Court considered that the termination of the services of a Secretary on the ground of registration of a criminal case, where no enquiry was conducted, it is held that it is obligatory on the part of the Authority to conduct an enquiry before passing the order. Similar view has been taken in the case of Kailash Babu Rai v. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2008 Vol.3 MPLJ 648 and also in case of Jitendra Kumar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2015 Vol.3 MPLJ 116.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order of termination (Annexure P/6) is unsustainable, as the same has been passed without holding an enquiry and in contravention of procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999.
11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.04.2022 (Annexure- P/2) is quashed. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in services. A liberty is granted to the Competent Authority to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI) JUDGE Arun/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN NAIR Signing time: 11/28/2025 2:50:15 PM