Madhya Pradesh High Court
C.K. Mishra (Chandrakant Mishra ) vs The M.P. Professional Examination ... on 27 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7103
1 WP-6394-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 27th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6394 of 2016
C.K. MISHRA (CHANDRAKANT MISHRA )
Versus
THE M.P. PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION BOARD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Piyush Jain - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, being aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2014 passed by the Director (Disciplinary Authority), M.P. Professional Examination Board, whereby the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed, and the order dated 01.01.2016 passed by the Chairman (Appellate Authority), the M.P. Professional Examination Board, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on a regular post of Class-III (Lower Division Clerk) on 10.06.1983 in the M.P. Professional Examination Board . Thereafter, he was appointed to the post of Data Entry Operator vide order dated 16.01.1986. Subsequently, upon the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, he Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 1/31/2026 1:12:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7103 2 WP-6394-2016 was promoted to the post of Assistant Programmer vide order dated 01.10.1996. In connection with the infamous VYAPAM scam, as many as twelve First Information Reports were registered against the petitioner. He was arrested in the month of July 2013 and remained in jail for about 14 months, thereafter released on bail by this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Meanwhile, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 09.10.2013 levelling as many as five charges, which read as under:
" ी सी.के. िम ा , सहायक ो ामर (िनलंबन म) , म य दे श यावसाियक पर ा म डल के व म० ० िस वल सेवा (वग करण, िनयं ण एवं अपील) िनयम , 1966 के िनयम 14(3)के अ तगत ािधकृ त आरोप प म य दे श िस वल सेवा (वग करण , िनयं ण एवं अपील) िनयम , 1966 के िनयम 14 (3) के अ तगत ी सी.के. िम ा, यावसाियक पर ा म डल म सहायक ो ामर के पद पर कायरत रहते हु ए पी.एम.ट .- 2013 म कये गये कृ य एवं कदाचरण के कारण ी सी.के. िम ा , सहायक ो ामर, अपचार अिधकार के व िन निल खत आरोप अिधरो पत कये जाते ह :-
आरोप मांक- 1 पी.एम.ट .- 2013 क पर ा म रोल नंबर एवं के आवंटन क या क जानकार अपूण एवं अ प प से उपल ध कराया जाना।
ाईम ांच इं दौर के प दनांक 08.07.2013 के अंतगत पी.एम.ट .- 2013 क पर ा म रोल नंबर एवं के आवंटन क या क जानकार अपचार ारा पूणतः अ प एवं अपूण जानकार द गई। अपचार का यह कृ य कदाचार क ण े ी म आता है एवं आचरण िनयम 1965 िनयम 3 (1) व (2) के दोषी है ।
आरोप मांक- 2 पी.एम.ट .- 2013 क पर ा से संबंिधत रोल नंबर आवंटन के संबंध म लॉ जक क जानकार मंडल न ती म उपल ध न होना।
पी.एम.ट .-2013 क पर ा म रोल नंबर आवंटन के संबंध म उपयोग म लाए गए लॉ जक का स म अनुमोदन न ती पर नह ं िलया गया। अपचार का यह कृ य कदाचार क ण े ी म आता है एवं आचरण िनयम 1965 िनयम 3 (1) व (2) के दोषी है ।
आरोप मांक- 3 मंडल आदे शानुसार पी.एम.ट .- 2013 क पर ा म पर ा के एवं रोल नंबर का आवंटन रडम प ित से न कया जाना।
मंडल अ य के आदे श मांक वीपी/क यू/ 11-80/2012/08/4276 दनांक 22.06.12 म पर ा के एवं रोल नंबर आवंटन के रडम प ित से न कया जाकर इं डे संग प ित से कया गया है एवं मंडल आदे श को अनदे खा कया गया। अपचार का यह कृ य कदाचार क ण े ी म आता है एवं आचरण िनयम 1965 िनयम 3 (1) व (2) के दोषी है ।
आरोप मांक- 4 पी.एम.ट .- 2013 क पर ा के वेश-प को मंडल वेबसाईट पर वलंब से अपलोड करना।
पी.एम.ट . पर ा-2013 के अंतगत जार ए ट वट चाट म उ ले खत वेश प अपलो डं ग क ितिथ दनांक 30.06.2013 का पालन सुिन त न करते हु ए इस पर ा के वेश प दनांक Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 1/31/2026 1:12:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7103 3 WP-6394-2016 03.07. 2013 को ातः अपलोड कराए गए जब क पर ा का ए ट वट चाट माननीय अ य महोदय के ारा अनुमो दत था। अपचार का यह कृ य कदाचार क ण े ी म आता है एवं आचरण िनयम 1965 िनयम 3 (1) व (2) एवं 3-क (ख) के दोषी है ।
आरोप मांक- 5 पी.एम.ट .- 2013 क पर ा म 49 िनर त आवेदक को रोल नंबर एवं पर ा के का आवंटन कया जाना।
पी.एम.ट .-2013 क पर ा म 49 िनर त आवेदक को रोल नंबर एवं पर ा के का आवंटन िनयम व कया गया। अपचार का यह कृ य कदाचार क ण े ी म आता है एवं आचरण िनयम 1965 िनयम 3 (1) व (2) के दोषी है ।"
3. Admittedly, during the relevant period, the petitioner was in jail, however, he submitted his reply to the charge sheet. Apart from his alleged involvement in the VYAPAM scam, he had played similer role in other examinations/selections conducted, for the Madhya Pradesh Dugdh Sangh Pariksha, 2012, Police Recruitment Examination, 2012, PMT 2011, PMT 2010, PMT 2008, Samvida Shala Shikshak Pariksha Varg-II (Year 2011), PMT 2012, Kaniksh Aapurti Adhikari/Nirikshak Naptol Examination, 2012, and Police Constable Examination, 2012. The petitioner was served with several show-cause notices. The petitioner submitted detailed representations stating that since he had been in jail, departmental proceedings should be stayed.
4. The Disciplinary Authority decided to dispense with the enquiry, initiated by issuing charge-sheet to the petitioner, in order to invoke the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 19(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, to dismiss the petitioner from service. The reasons which are assigned for dispensing with the departmental enquiry were that the petitioner had been in jail for the last 14 months, and the criminal trials pending against him are not likely to be concluded in the near future. Aggrieved by the order Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 1/31/2026 1:12:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7103 4 WP-6394-2016 of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.01.2016. Hence, the present petition is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that along with the petitioner, identical charge-sheets have also been issued to Shri S.K. Patel, Assistant Programmer; Shri R.P. Thakur; and Dr Pankaj Trivedi, Director- cum-Controller. However, in their cases, they are still continuing in service under suspension, and departmental enquiries are going on against them. Only the petitioner has been dismissed by invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, read with Rule 19(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. There is no reply or explanation furnished by the respondents in their return as to why, only in the case of the petitioner, the enquiry was dispensed with. The petitioner remained in jail from 16.07.2013 and was thereafter released on bail.
5. Shri Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been implicated in as many as twelve criminal cases. The details are as follows: -
S. No. Exam Case No. Chargesheet No. Date of Charge Sheet Charge Frame Date 1 PMT-13 740/14 RC 217 2015 A0108 31.10.2017 Not yet framed 2 PMT-12 317/14 RC 217 2015 A0025 22.11.2017 Not yet framed 3 DAIRY-12 03/14 RC 217 2015 A0153 31.12.2018 01.10.2021 4 CONSTABLE-12 808/14 RC 217 2015 A0152 31.10.2018 25.03.2022 5 FOOD-12 04/14 RC 217 2015 A0018 18.11.2018 18.02.2022 6 SAMVIDA-2 704/14 RC 217 2015 A0016 24.02.2018 10.02.2022 7 SAMVIDA-3 936/14 RC 217 2015 A0015 03.04.2018 22.03.2018 8 RTO-12 07/15 RC 217 2015 S0017 31.12.2018 28.08.2024 9 SUB INSPECTOR-12 03/15 RC 217 2015 A0020 30.11.2018 07.01.2020 10 CONSTABLE-13 06/14 RC 217 2015 A0024 21.12.2019 07.10.2021 11 FOREST-13 06/15 RC 217 2015 A0008 31.12.2018 30.05.2023 12 DATA-13 07/15 RC 217 2015 A0021 31.03.2018 13.04.2022
6. It is further submitted that even after a lapse of nearly ten years, there is no substantial progress in the trial. In the meantime, the petitioner Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 1/31/2026 1:12:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7103 5 WP-6394-2016 has crossed the age of superannuation. Had he been continued in service, he would have paid the subsistence allowances, which other similarly situated delinquents are receiving. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398. The relevant paras are as under:-
"132. It is not necessary that a situation which makes the holding of an inquiry not reasonably practicable should exist before the disciplinary inquiry is initiated against a government servant. Such a situation can also come into existence subsequently during the course of an inquiry, for instance, after the service of a charge-sheet upon the government servant or after he has filed his written statement thereto or even after evidence has been led in part. In such a case also the disciplinary authority would be entitled to apply clause (b) of the second proviso because the word "inquiry" in that clause includes part of an inquiry. It would also not be reasonably practicable to afford to the government servant an opportunity of hearing or further hearing, as the case may be, when at the commencement of the inquiry or pending it the government servant absconds and cannot be served or will not participate in the inquiry. In such cases, the matter must proceed ex parte and on the materials before the disciplinary authority. Therefore, even where a part of an inquiry has been held and the rest is dispensed with under clause (b) or a provision in the service rules analogous thereto, the exclusionary words of the second proviso operate in their full vigour and the government servant cannot complain that he has been dismissed, removed or reduced in rank in violation of the safeguards provided by Article 311(2).
134. It is obvious that the recording in writing of the reason for dispensing with the inquiry must precede the order imposing the penalty. The reason for dispensing with the inquiry need not, therefore, find a place in the final order. It would be usual to record the reason separately and then consider the question of the penalty to be imposed and pass the order imposing the penalty. It would, however, be better to record the reason in the final order in order to avoid the allegation that the reason was not recorded in writing before passing the final order but was subsequently fabricated. The reason for dispensing with the inquiry need not contain detailed particulars, but the reason must not be vague or just a repetition of the language of clause (b) of the second proviso. For instance, it would be no compliance with the requirement of clause (b) for the disciplinary authority simply to state that he was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold any inquiry. Sometimes, a situation may be such that it is not reasonably practicable to give detailed reasons for dispensing with the inquiry.
This would not, however, per se invalidate the order. Each case must be judged on its own merits and in the light of its own facts and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 1/31/2026 1:12:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7103 6 WP-6394-2016 circumstances."
7. No one is appearing on behalf of the respondents to oppose the writ petition.
Appriceations & Conclusions
7. In the present case, the petitioner did submit a reply, but he has remained in jail. It is correct that after his release from jail, he could have participated in the departmental proceedings, as is being done with the other delinquents, namely Shri S.K. Patel, Assistant Programmer; Shri R.P. Thakur; and Dr Pankaj Trivedi, Director-cum-Controller. The VYAPAM scam became a major blot on the selection and education system in Madhya Pradesh. A large number of students, parents, solvers, middelman and manipulators were arrested and sent to jail. The carrier of a large number of students has been badly affected due to this scam. The petitioner played a major role in this medical admission scam; he has rightly been terminated without inquiry. The petitioner is the main accused in 12 criminal/CBI trials, and not at all going to be concluded in the near future, hence no useful purpose of keep departmental enquiry pending.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the charge- sheet dated 09.10.2013, the punishment and the appellate order are not liable to be quashed.
9. With the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Praveen
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
1/31/2026 1:12:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7103
7 WP-6394-2016
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
1/31/2026 1:12:57 PM