Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishnakant Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9864
1 W.P. No. 27564/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 7th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 27564 of 2024
KRISHNAKANT CHOUHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Utkarshkumar Rasendukumar Joshi - Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri Sudeep Bhargav - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents State.
ORDER
This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, seeking the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction to challenge the disciplinary action taken against him by the respondent authorities.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 10-04-2026 17:34:00NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9864 2 W.P. No. 27564/2024
2. The petitioner primarily seeks a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Collector, Ratlam. The petitioner also seeks the quashing of the inquiry report dated 06.11.2015 and the appellate order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain, with all consequential benefits.
Facts of the Case
3. The petitioner is a Class III employee, holding the post of Assistant Grade II at Sub Treasury Jaora, District Ratlam. Based on a complaint filed by one Shri Pushpendra Bose, the petitioner was suspended by an order dated 14.08.2015.
4. Subsequently, a Memorandum along with a Charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 24.09.2015 under Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 03.10.2015, denying all the allegations leveled against him.
5. On 06.11.2015, the District Pension Officer was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, and the Assistant Pension Officer was Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 10-04-2026 17:34:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9864 3 W.P. No. 27564/2024 appointed as the Presenting Officer by the District Treasury Officer, Ratlam. An inquiry was subsequently conducted.
6. The Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of three out of seven charges: demanding a 1% commission to pass a bill, insubordinate behavior towards senior officers, and failing to submit a timely explanation. The remaining four charges were not proved.
7. Based on the inquiry report, the Collector, Ratlam, passed the impugned order dated 30.11.2016, imposing a major penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order, which was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ujjain, on 26.03.2018.
Contentions of the Petitioner
8. The petitioner contends that the Collector, Ratlam, lacked the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. As the petitioner is an Assistant Grade-II employee, the Collector could not have imposed a major penalty of withholding increments with cumulative effect under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 10-04-2026 17:34:00NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9864 4 W.P. No. 27564/2024
9. It is further argued that the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed by the District Treasury Officer, who is subordinate to the Disciplinary Authority (Collector). This violates Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules 1966, rendering the appointments and the subsequent inquiry per se illegal.
10. The petitioner asserts that the disciplinary proceedings were marred by procedural irregularities. Witnesses were not examined in his presence, no opportunity for cross-examination was given, and the findings were based on conjectures, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
11. The petitioner emphasizes that the withholding of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty. He relies on the legal position that such a penalty exceeds the Collector's jurisdiction for his cadre and cannot be imposed without a legally valid, full- fledged inquiry.
Contentions of the Respondents
12. The respondents submit that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, as the initial punishment was ordered on 30.11.2016, the appeal was decided on Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 10-04-2026 17:34:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9864 5 W.P. No. 27564/2024 26.03.2018, and the present petition has been filed after a lapse of almost six years.
13. The respondents aver that the Collector is the ultimate appointing authority for the petitioner's cadre in the District. They state that several complaints and show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner earlier, to which he failed to submit any reply.
14. Regarding the appointment of the Inquiry Officer, the respondents contend that the District Treasury Officer proposed the name on a note-sheet, which was subsequently approved by the Collector on 19.10.2015. Thus, the appointment was valid and approved by the competent authority.
15. The respondents assert that a detailed inquiry was conducted, affording the petitioner ample opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence. They maintain that the charges were proved and the punishment under Rule 10 of the M.P. CCA Rules, 1966, was lawfully imposed and affirmed by the appellate authority.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 10-04-2026 17:34:00NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9864 6 W.P. No. 27564/2024 Analysis and Conclusion
16. Having heard the contentions raised by both parties and upon careful perusal of the record, this Court must first delineate the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary matters. The Court does not sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence but is confined to examining whether the decision-making process is vitiated by jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity, or violation of statutory rules and the principles of natural justice.
16. The central issue requiring determination by this Court is whether the penalty of withholding increments with cumulative effect constitutes a major penalty, and whether its imposition in the present factual scenario withstands legal scrutiny.
17. The law regarding the nature of the penalty of withholding increments with cumulative effect is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab reported in 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504 has conclusively settled this position. The Apex Court held:
" 4. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 10-04-2026 17:34:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9864 7 W.P. No. 27564/2024 undoubtedly is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5(iv). But sub-rule (v) postulates reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the government employee shall earn increments of pay during the period of such reductions and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. It is an independent head of penalty and it could be imposed as punishment in an appropriate case. It is one of the major penalties. The impugned order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect whether would fall within the meaning of Rule 5(v)? If it so falls Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules require conducting of regular enquiry. The contention of Shri Nayar, learned counsel for the State is that withholding two increments with cumulative effect is only a minor penalty as it does not amount to reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay. We find it extremely difficult to countenance the contention. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it certainly comes within the meaning of Rule 5(iv) of the Rules. But when penalty was imposed withholding two increments i.e. for two years with cumulative effect, it would indisputably mean that the two increments earned by the employee was cut off as a measure of penalty for ever in his upward march of earning higher scale of pay. In other words the clock is put back to a lower stage in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 10-04-2026 17:34:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9864 8 W.P. No. 27564/2024 time scale of pay and on expiry of two years the clock starts working from that stage afresh. The insidious effect of the impugned order, by necessary implication, is that the appellant employee is reduced in his time scale by two places and it is in perpetuity during the rest of the tenure of his service with a direction that two years' increments would not be counted in his time scale of pay as a measure of penalty. The words are the skin to the language which if peeled off its true colour or its resultant effects would become apparent. When we broach the problem from this perspective the effect is as envisaged under Rule 5(v) of the Rules. It is undoubted that the Division Bench in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab [ILR (1985) 2 P&H 193 : (1985) 1 SLJ 513 (P&H)] , P.C. Jain, A.C.J. speaking for the Division Bench, while considering similar question, in paragraph 8 held that the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, by no stretch of imagination falls within clause (v) of Rule 5 or in Rule 4.12 of Punjab Civil Services Rules. It was further held that under clause (v) of Rule 5 there has to be a reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by the competent authority as a measure of penalty and the period for which such a reduction is to be effective has to be stated and on restoration it has further to be specified whether the reduction shall operate to postpone the future increments of his pay. In such cases withholding of the increments without cumulative effect does not at all arise. In case where the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 10-04-2026 17:34:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9864 9 W.P. No. 27564/2024 increments are withheld with or without cumulative effect the government employee is never reduced to a lower stage of time scale of pay. Accordingly it was held that clause (iv) of Rule 5 is applicable to the facts of that case. With respect we are unable to agree with the High Court. If the literal interpretation is adopted the learned Judges may be right to arrive at that conclusion. But if the effect is kept at the back of the mind, it would always be so, the result will be the conclusion as we have arrived at. If the reasoning of the High Court is given acceptance, it would empower the disciplinary authority to impose, under the garb of stoppage of increments, (sic stoppage) of earning future increments in the time scale of pay even permanently without expressly stating so. This preposterous consequence cannot be permitted to be permeated. Rule 5(iv) does not empower the disciplinary authority to impose penalty of withholding increments of pay with cumulative effect except after holding inquiry and following the prescribed procedure. Then the order would be without jurisdiction or authority of law, and it would be per se void. Considering from this angle we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order would come within the meaning of Rule 5(v) of the Rules; it is a major penalty and imposition of the impugned penalty without enquiry is per se illegal."
18. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M.M. Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 10-04-2026 17:34:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9864 10 W.P. No. 27564/2024 Mudgal Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in ILR 2012 (MP) 2651 has held as under:-
" 7. Undisputedly the punishment order was issued against the petitioner after giving him a show cause. Though as per the law laid-down by the Apex Court, penalty of withholding of increment of pay with cumulative effect is deemed to be a major penalty but in the rules the same is treated as a minor penalty. Since it is not clarified whether withholding of increment or stagnation allowance, as enumerated in Rule 10(iv) of the Rules, with cumulative effect is also a minor penalty, the law laid-down by the Apex Court is required to be kept in mind and if the said law is made applicable, withholding of increment of pay with cumulative effect is deemed to be a major penalty. This has to be held so because the penalty if imposed with cumulative effect will not only cause prejudice, monetary loss to the Government employee while in service but the loss will also be caused after the retirement of the employee concerned and even the family pension will also be affected. Looking to such long effect of the penalty, it cannot be treated to be a minor penalty at all. Law in this respect has been well settled long back by the Apex Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp(1) SCC 504, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that if a penalty is imposed in such a manner, affecting the rights during service and even after service, it has to be treated as Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 10-04-2026 17:34:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9864 11 W.P. No. 27564/2024 major penalty, which cannot be imposed without conducting a ful fledged enquiry as enumerated under Rule 14 of the Rules. Admittedly no charge- sheet was issued to the petitioner and only a show cause under Rule 16 of the Rules was given to him, which means that only a summary enquiry was conducted for imposition of a minor penalty. In the garb of minor penalty, a major penalty should not have been imposed on the petitioner."
19. This position is further fortified by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K.R. Shankara Kaimal vs. State of M.P. and another reported in 1995 MPLJ (SN) 54, which categorically held: -
"M.P. Civil Services (CC and A) Rules, 1966, RR.10 and 23 - Stoppage of annual increments with cumulative effect - Punishment is major penalty -Imposition of the penalty only after notice without following procedure for major penalty is illegal. Stoppage of annual grade increments with cumulative effect amounts to major penalty. Imposition of such major penalty after notice without following procedure for major penalty is illegal. 1991 Supp. (1)SCC 504, 1991 MPST 650, Rel."
20. Analyzing the facts of the present case against these binding precedents, it is evident that the petitioner, an Assistant Grade-II Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 10-04-2026 17:34:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9864 12 W.P. No. 27564/2024 employee, has been subjected to a major penalty. The petitioner's primary ground that the Collector lacked the requisite jurisdiction to impose a major penalty on his specific cadre, and that the procedure adopted was fundamentally flawed from the stage of appointing the Inquiry Officer finds substantial force in light of the mandate that a major penalty demands absolute strictness in procedural compliance and jurisdictional competence.
21. Since the impugned penalty is a major one, the failure to strictly adhere to the rigorous procedures mandated for major penalties, coupled with the jurisdictional overreach, renders the entire disciplinary action legally unsustainable. The respondents' defense that ample opportunity was given cannot cure the inherent jurisdictional and procedural defects when a major penalty is inflicted.
22. In view of the settled legal position that the imposition of such a penalty without the lawful and rigorous procedure of a major penalty is per se illegal, the impugned action cannot be allowed to stand.
23. Accordingly, the order dated 30.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Ratlam is hereby quashed and liberty is Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 10-04-2026 17:34:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9864 13 W.P. No. 27564/2024 granted to the Competent Authority to take up the matter in accordance with law.
24. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
(Jai Kumar Pillai) Judge rashmi*PS Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 10-04-2026 17:34:00