Madhya Pradesh High Court
Karam Singh Saran vs M.P. State Agricultural Marketing ... on 15 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12161
1 WP-18256-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 15th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 18256 of 2020
KARAM SINGH SARAN
Versus
M.P. STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Divakar Vyas -Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shyam Prakash Jain- Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 8.2.2017, whereby he was imposed with punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect on account of certain allegations. He has also challenged the order dated 23.8.2018, whereby his appeal filed against the punishment order was dismissed by the appellate authority.
2. The facts in short necessary for decision of this case are that, at the relevant time, the petitioner was substantively holding the post of Mandi Inspector and was given the charge of the post of Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Maksudangarh, District Guna. He was served with a show cause notice on 4.10.2016, whereby following allegation was levelled:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 4/17/2026 12:22:12 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12161 2 WP-18256-2020 "यह क कृ ष उपज म ड सिमित मकसूदनगढ म 10 नग शे शाप के म य थान कुल 3 वगमीटर को कराये पर दे ने हे तु दनांक 20.06.2011 को नीलामी कायवाह संपा दत क गयी। त समय म डय के िलये भूिम आवंटन एवं संरचना िनयम 2009 भावशील थे। जसके पालन म नीलामी कायवाह संपा दत कये जाने हे तु ग ठत नीलाम सिमित के सद य को नीलामी ितिथ पर उप थत होने हे तु सूचना प जार कया जाना नह ाया गया है जससे वह नीलामी कायवाह के दौरान उप थत नह ं रहे । नीलामी क कायवाह त कालीन अ य ीमती कृ णा मुरार एवं आपके उप थित म संपा दत क गयी, जो भूिम आवंटन एवं सरचना िनयम 3 एवं 8 का उ लघंन है । जसके िलये आप दोषी है ।"
3 . The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice denying the allegations in the following terms:
"उ त यो एवं अिभलेखो के अवलोकन से प है क भूिम एवं संरचना आवंटन िनयम 2009 के िनयम 8 अनुसार नीलामी सिमित के अ य , कृ ष उपज म ड सिमित के अ य एवं सद य बोड के उपसंचालक व म ड सिमित के सिचव है । नीलामी कायवाह म म ड सिमित के अ य एवं म ड सिमित के सिचव उप थत रहे है तथा म ड बोड के स म ािधकार अथात ीमान संयु संचालक ारा उ कायवाह का अनुमोदन कया गया ह। जससे प है क उ र भूिम कुल 3 वगमीटर के कराये पर आवंटन म भूिम एवं संरचना आवंटन िनयम 2009 के िनयम 3 व 8 का उ लंघन नह हुआ है । ाथ ारा िनयं णकता अिधकार अ य म ड सिमित मकसूदनगढ के िनदशो के पालन म म ड सिमित ारा ताव कमांक 5 (8) द. 30.05.2011 म िलये गये िनणय का पालन स म ािधकार संयु संचालक म. . रा य कृ ष वपणन बोड वािलयर से अनुमोदन ा होने पर कया जाकर करण म िनयमानुसार कायवाह क गयी है ।"
4 . Thereafter, the impugned order of punishment was passed on 8.2.2017, imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The appeal filed against the punishment order also suffered dismissal vide order dated 23.8.2018. Challenging these orders, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 4/17/2026 12:22:12 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12161 3 WP-18256-2020 the petitioner has filed the present petition.
5 . The impugned orders of punishment have been challenged primarily on the ground that the imposed punishment is a major punishment, which could not have been inflicted without conducting departmental enquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's service was governed by the provisions of M.P. Rajya Mandi Board Sewa Viniyam, 1998. Even though the stoppage of increment is specified as a minor punishment, however, since the effect of the imposed punishment is permanent, this punishment is infact a major punishment. He refers to Regulation 32 to say that the major punishment could not have been imposed without conducting a departmental enquiry.
6 . On merits of the allegations also, he submitted that the petitioner has denied the allegations levelled against him in categorical terms. In the impugned order, the said submission of the petitioner has not been controverted, and he has been inflicted with punishment for the allegation which does not find place in the show cause notice. The learned counsel also submitted that during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has retired in the year 2023. He thus prayed for setting aside of the punishment orders and for grant of consequential benefits to the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned action of the respondents. He submitted that the punishment Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 4/17/2026 12:22:12 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12161 4 WP-18256-2020 has been imposed after considering the reply given to the show cause notice by the petitioner, and therefore, there is no ground for interference made out. He further submitted that since the punishment imposed is a minor punishment as per Regulation 33, the same could have been inflicted by issuance of show cause notice and taking reply from the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the allegations were duly made in the show cause notice, and in respect of those allegations only, the impugned punishment has been imposed. The learned counsel thus submitted that no ground is made out for interference by this Court.
8. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
9. The Apex Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab reported in 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504, dealt with this issued and held as under:
"4. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 4/17/2026 12:22:12 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12161 5 WP-18256-2020 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 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 increments are withheld with or without cumulative effect the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 4/17/2026 12:22:12 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12161 6 WP-18256-2020 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."
1 0 . As held by Apex Court, the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect infact amounts to reduction in pay scale under Regulation 30(four). Such a punishment carries its effect even after retirement of an employee, the same has been termed as a major punishment. Regulation 32 prescribes procedure for inflicting major punishment. A perusal of this regulation as also, as held by Apex Court in aforementioned case, the major punishment could not be imposed without conducting a departmental enquiry. The impugned order of punishment thus suffers from material illegality on this ground.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 4/17/2026 12:22:12 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12161 7 WP-18256-2020 11 . On merits also, from the show cause notice served to the petitioner on 4.10.2016, it is alleged against the petitioner that, while working as In-charge Secretary of the Samiti, he failed to serve notice to the members of Auction Committee, as a result of which the committee members could not remain present at the time of auction. It is also alleged that the process of auction was conducted by the then President of the Samiti in petitioner's presence, which is in violation of Rule 3 & 8 of Land Allotment Rules, 2009. In reply, the petitioner has specifically stated that the notice of the auction was duly served to the members of the committee.
1 2 . In the impugned order dated 8.2.2017, the punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner, on the allegation that the area of 3 square meter is allotted to a candidate who is not having the license. This is stated to be in violation of Rule 3(5) of the Land Allotment Rules, 2009. However, such an allegation is not found to have been made against the petitioner in the show cause notice. The punishment order vitiates on this ground also.
13. Considering the aforesaid, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 8.2.2017 and affirmed by order dated 23.8.2018 are found to be unsustainable in law.
1 4 . The learned counsel for the respondents, at this stage, submitted that the matter may be remitted to the competent authority for conducting enquiry and taking a fresh decision. On this, the learned Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 4/17/2026 12:22:12 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12161 8 WP-18256-2020 counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner are not so serious which may warrant a departmental enquiry after lapse of about 4 years of his retirement.
15. Since the allegations made against the petitioner in the show cause notice were procedural in nature and no allegation, serious in nature, was made, it would not be appropriate to direct an enquiry after lapse of 3 years of his retirement.
16. Consequently, the order dated 08.02.2017 & 23.08.2018 are set aside. As a result of setting aside of the impugned orders, the retiral benefits of the petitioners are also required to be revised and settled accordingly. The respondents are directed to do the needful in the matter within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
1 7 . The petition is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid direction.
(ASHISH SHROTI) JUDGE vpn/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 4/17/2026 12:22:12 PM