Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Singh Raghuvanshi (Deleted) ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12734
1 WP-6475-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 20th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6475 of 2013
DEVENDRA SINGH RAGHUVANSHI (DELETED) SMT. SHASHI
KALAN RAGHUVANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Katare - learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar - learned Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred seeking the following relief(s):
"(i) That the impugned orders dt.22.7.2013 (Annexure P/1), dt.14.3.2013 (Annexure P/2), dt.20.12.2012 (Annexure P/3) and dt.28.7.2010 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed with further directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue at his present place of posting.
(ii) That the consequential notice dated 27.7.2013 (Annexure P/5), order dt.28.2.2013 (Annexure P/6) and dt. 16.7.2013 (Annexure P/6) passed by the respondents may also be quashed with directions to the respondents not to take any coercive action pursuant to the aforesaid impugned orders/notice. (iiia) That the impugned order dated 14-03-20123 passed by the respondents (Annexure P/7-A) may kindly be quashed".
(ii-b) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential, Monetary and other service benefits.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 4/22/2026 6:37:03 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12734 2 WP-6475-2013
(iii) That any other relief which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner including the costs throughout may also be granted."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable in the year 1985. It is further submitted that a joint charge-sheet was issued to petitioner. After issuance of charge-sheet, an inquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer was also appointed. However, the Enquiry Officer himself cross-examined the petitioner as well as other witnesses whereas the Presenting Officer did not cross-examine the witnesses. It is further submitted that the Enquiry Officer is not a Judge and by adopting a biased approach, he cross-examined the petitioner. Thereafter, the punishment order dated 20.12.2012 was passed by the respondent, whereby the penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner. It is further contended that the impugned order is non-speaking and unreasoned, as the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner dated 03.12.2012 was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority; however, the Appellate Authority also failed to consider the facts and grounds raised in the appeal including the issue of improper cross- examination conducted during the inquiry and dismissed the appeal by passing a non-speaking and unreasoned order. It is further submitted that the petitioner was serving as a Constable, whereas other charge-sheeted persons were higher-ranking officers. Despite being more responsible, those similarly situated higher officers were awarded lesser punishment. In contrast, petitioner has been inflicted with the severe penalty of compulsory Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 4/22/2026 6:37:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12734 3 WP-6475-2013 retirement which is arbitrary and discriminatory. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been rejected by passing a non-speaking and unreasoned order.
3 . Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the contentions and supported the impugned order stating that the petitioner, having participated in the departmental inquiry, never raised such objections before the authorities. It is only after the conclusion of the departmental inquiry and passing of the punishment order that such objections have been raised for the first time in the present writ petition. It is further argued that the scope of interference in matters relating to departmental inquiries is limited and there cannot be any reappreciation of evidence at this stage. In this regard, certain parameters have been laid down in the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court governing interference in cases of departmental inquiry. It is further submitted that after due consideration, the appellate authority arrived at the conclusion that the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority was in accordance with law and did not warrant interference. However, it is fairly conceded that while concurring with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority, no detailed reasons were assigned. Placing reliance on the judgment in Union of India and others v. P. Gunasekaran , (2015) 2 SCC 610 , learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Important part of the punishment order dated 20.12.2012 (Annexure P/3) passed by Disciplinary Authority reads as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 4/22/2026 6:37:03 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12734 4 WP-6475-2013 "बदमाश एस0ए0एफ के जवान से उनक बंदक ू े जबरद ती मारपीट कर छुडा कर ले जाना बताया है । इससे प है क बस चालक ारा आरो पय को घटना घ टत होने से पहले सजग कया था पंरतु वे सजग नह रहे । आरोपी आर0 347 दे बे िसंह ारा क सुर ा यूट पर सश तैनाती के दौरान म पान कये हुये था जसक पु अिभयोजन सा ी 05 0आर0 54 रामभरोसे थाना ईसागढ़ एवं आर0 क मे डकल रपोट अिभयोजन दश प 0 6 से होती है । इस कार आर क का यह कृ य घोर अनुशासनह नता क ण े ी म आता है । सबब ् आरो पय ारा तुत अ यावेदन संतोष द नह ं है ।
जांचकता क राय से मै सहमत हू । आरोपी पीसी रामहे त, पीसी च भान, एपीसी दशरथ िसंह आर0 421 राजकुमार एवं आर0 41 जोगे िसंह के व अिधरो पत आरोप मा णत नह पाये जाने से इनके व आदे िशत वजा न तीव क जाती है तथा आरोपी सेवािनवृत क पनी कमा डर लालाराम पटे ल, आरोपी 0आर0 53 द प पाठक एवं आर0 347 दे वे िसंह 26वीं बटा0 गुना के व उपरो ानुसार आरोप मा णत पाये जाने के िलये इ ह िन नानुसार द ड से द डत कया जाता है :-
1- आरोपी सीसी लालाराम पटे ल (सेवािनवृत) को एक वेतनवृ के बराबर क रािश क कटौती संचयी भाव से क जाती है जसका भाव भावी वेतनवृ एवं पशन आ द पर पड़े गा।
2- आरोपी 0आर0 53 द प पाठक को एक वेतनवृ के बराबर क रािश क कटौती संचयी भाव से क जाती है जसका भाव भावी वेतनवृ एवं पशन आ द पर पड़े गा ।
3- आरोपी आर0 347 दे वे िसंह को आदे श दनांक से बा य Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 4/22/2026 6:37:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12734 5 WP-6475-2013 सेवािनवृ के द ड से द डत कया जाता है "
6. From perusal of punishment order dated 20.12.2012 (Annexure P/3), it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority, while passing imposing the punishment order of a Government servant, is exercising quasi-judicial powers and even the quasi-judicial orders must be speaking orders. The Disciplinary authority must apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances and record valid and justifiable reasons or grounds in support of its conclusion. On perusal of the punishment order, it does not appear to be a speaking one.
7. The relevant part of appeal rejection order dated 14.03.2013 (Annexure P/7-A) passed by Appellate Authority reads as under:-
"कृ पया वषया तगत संदिभत प का अवलोकन करने का क कर। जसके मा यम से 26वी बटा0 गुना म पद थ भू0पू0 आर0 347, दे वे िसंह को पुन: सेवा मे बहाल कये जाने के संबंध म केवल वभागीय जॉच न ती ''अ'' ''ब'' ा हुयी है ।
2- कृ पया लेख है क पुिलस महािनर क, वसबल रज वािलयर के अिभमत तथा सेनानी क ट प से सहमत होते हुये अपीलाथ क अपील िनर त क गई है ।
3- कृ पया ा वभागीय जॉच न तयॉ ''अ-ब'' काय उपरा त मूलत: संल न े षत है । कृ पया पावती क अिभ वीकृ ित े षत करने का क कर।
संल न:- उपरो ानुसार ।"
8. From perusal of the appellate order dated 14.03.2013 (Annexure Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 4/22/2026 6:37:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12734 6 WP-6475-2013 P/7-A), it is clear that the Appellate Authority, while passing the appellate order of a Government servant, is exercising quasi-judicial powers and even the quasi-judicial orders must be speaking orders. The Appellate authority must apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances and record valid and justifiable reasons or grounds in support of its conclusion. On perusal of the appellate order, it does not appear to be a speaking one.
9. It is a settled position in law that when a discretion is vested in an authority to exercise a particular power, the same is required to be exercised with due diligence and in reasonable and rational manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has reiterated time and again the necessity and importance of giving reasons by the authority in support of its decision. It has been held that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even by an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties must speak. The affected party must know how his case or defence was considered before passing the prejudicial order.
10. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v/s. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 is relevant to quote. In the said decision it had been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and self-sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion.
11. In the same judgment in paragraph 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarifies that the Government does not have carte blanche to take any Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 4/22/2026 6:37:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12734 7 WP-6475-2013 decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must be informed and impregnated with reasons. Paragraph 7 of the said decision is quoted as under:-
"7. The same principle was upheld more recently in Ram Kishun v. State of U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382. However, we must hasten to clarify that the Government does not have a carte blanche to take any decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must be informed and impregnated with reasons. This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of this Court, including in Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd (1993) 1 SCC 445, Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617, B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 548 and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517".
12. Also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v/s Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in (2010) 9 SCC 496 highlights this point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 15 opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the inscrutable face of a sphinx. In paragraph 47 the Honb'le Supreme Court summarized its discussion. The relevant sub- paragraphs of the said summary are quoted as under:-
"47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decisionmaking process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 4/22/2026 6:37:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12734 8 WP-6475-2013
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford 2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA), wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires,"adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".
13. The Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India and others vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018) 7 SCC 670 has held as under:-
"31. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court speaking through Justice R.V. Raveendran, CJ (as he then was) had occasion to consider the question of vitiation of the inquiry when the Inquiry Officer starts himself acting as prosecutor in Union of India and ors. vs. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, ILR (2004) MP 821. In the above case the Court considered Rule 9(9) (c) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The Division Bench while elaborating fundamental principles of natural justice enumerated the seven well recognised facets in paragraph 7 of the judgment which is to the following effect: "7. One of the fundamental principles of natural justice is that no man shall be a judge in his own cause. This principle consists of seven well recognised facets:
(i) The adjudicator shall be impartial and free from bias,
(ii) The adjudicator shall not be the prosecutor,
(iii) The complainant shall not be an adjudicator,
(iv) A witness cannot be the Adjudicator,
(v) The Adjudicator must not import his personal knowledge of the facts of the case while inquiring into charges,
(vi) The Adjudicator shall not decide on the dictates of his Superiors or others,
(vii) The Adjudicator shall decide the issue with reference to material on record and not reference to extraneous material or on extraneous considerations. If any one of these fundamental rules is breached, the inquiry will be vitiated."
32. The Division Bench further held that where the Inquiry Officer acts as Presenting Officer, bias can be presumed. In paragraph 9 is Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 4/22/2026 6:37:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12734 9 WP-6475-2013 as follows:
"9. A domestic inquiry must be held by an unbiased person who is unconnected with the incident so that he can be impartial and objective in deciding the subject matters of inquiry. He should have an open mind till the inquiry is completed and should neither act with bias nor give an impression of bias. Where the Inquiry Officer acts as the Presenting Officer, bias can be presumed. At all events, it clearly gives an impression of bias. An Inquiry Officer is in position of a Judge or Adjudicator. The Presenting Officer is in the position of a Prosecutor. If the Inquiry Officer acts as a Presenting Officer, then it would amount to Judge acting as the prosecutor. When the Inquiry Officer conducts the examination- in- chief of the prosecution witnesses and leads them through the facts so as to present the case of the disciplinary authority against the employee or cross- examines the delinquent employee or his witnesses to establish the case of the employer/disciplinary authority evidently, the Inquiry Officer cannot be said to have an open mind. The very fact that he presents the case of the employer and supports the case of the employer is sufficient to hold that the Inquiry Officer does not have an open mind."
33. The Division Bench after elaborately considering the issue summarised the principles in paragraph 16 which is to the following effect:
"16. We may summarise the principles thus:
(i) The Inquiry Officer, who is in the position of a Judge shall not act as a Presenting Officer, who is in the position of a prosecutor.
(ii) It is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to appoint a Presenting Officer in each and every inquiry. Non- appointment of a Presenting Officer, by itself will not vitiate the inquiry.
(iii) The Inquiry Officer, with a view to arrive at the truth or to obtain clarifications, can put questions to the prosecution witnesses as also the defence witnesses. In the absence of a Presenting Officer, if the Inquiry Officer puts any questions to the prosecution witnesses to elicit the facts, he should thereafter permit the delinquent employee to crossexamine such witnesses on those clarifications.
(iv) If the Inquiry Officer conducts a regular examination-in-chief by leading the prosecution witnesses through the prosecution case, or puts leading questions to the departmental witnesses pregnant with answers, or cross-examines the defence witnesses or puts suggestive questions to establish the prosecution case employee, the Inquiry Officer acts as prosecutor thereby vitiating the inquiry.
(v) As absence of a Presenting Officer by itself will not vitiate the inquiry and it is recognised that the Inquiry Officer can put questions to any or all witnesses to elicit the truth, the question whether an Inquiry Officer acted as a Presenting Officer, will have to be decided with reference to the manner in which the evidence is let in and recorded in the inquiry.
Whether an Inquiry Officer has merely acted only as an Inquiry Officer or has also acted as a Presenting Officer depends on the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 4/22/2026 6:37:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12734 10 WP-6475-2013 facts of each case. To avoid any allegations of bias and running the risk of inquiry being declared as illegal and vitiated, the present trend appears to be to invariably appoint Presenting Officers, except in simple cases. Be that as it may."
34. We fully endorse the principles as enumerated above, however, the principles have to be carefully applied in facts situation of a particular case................................" xxxxx
36. Thus, the question as to whether Inquiry Officer who is supposed to act independently in an inquiry has acted as prosecutor or not is a question of fact which has to be decided on the facts and proceedings of particular case. In the present case we have noticed that the High Court had summoned the entire inquiry proceedings and after perusing the proceedings the High Court came to the conclusion that Inquiry Officer himself led the examination in chief of the prosecution witness by putting questions. The High Court further held that the Inquiry Officer acted himself as prosecutor and Judge in the said disciplinary enquiry. The above conclusion of the High Court has already been noticed from paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment of the High court giving rise to Civil Appeal No.2608 of 2012.
37. The High Court having come to the conclusion that Inquiry Officer has acted as prosecutor also, the capacity of independent adjudicator was lost which adversely affecting his independent role of adjudicator. In the circumstances, the principle of bias shall come into play and the High Court was right in setting aside the dismissal orders by giving liberty to the appellants to proceed with inquiry afresh. We make it clear that our observations as made above are in the facts of the present cases."
14. On perusal of the aforesaid decision, it clearly reveals that an Inquiry Officer cannot assume the role of a prosecutor and cross-examine the delinquent employee. However, in the present case, as already observed, the petitioner has been elaborately cross-examined by the Inquiry Officer; therefore, in such circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed on this ground alone.
15. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the enquiry officer himself has acted as a prosecutor in the case and has cross- examined the witnesses which is not permissible in law. The aforesaid aspect Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 4/22/2026 6:37:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12734 11 WP-6475-2013 was considered in the case of Ram Prakash Singh vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P.No.414 of 2002 decided on 16.11.2009 wherein the case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey reported in (2002) 10 SCC 471 was taken note of and it has been held as under :
"In the present case, no Presenting Officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority and the subsequent enquiry officer himself has acted as Presenting Officer, meaning thereby, as a prosecutor. The enquiry officer has handed over the written questionnaire to the witnesses and on the basis of written questionnaire, the enquiry has been concluded in the matter. ....
8. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey and another (2002) 10 SCC 471 in paragraph 5 has held as under -
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in this case the Board had examined the material on record and come to the conclusion that four of the six charges could be proved on the available material, which had not been properly examined in the earlier inquiry. In fact from the order made by the Railway Board as well as from that part of the file where the inquiry report made earlier is discussed, it is clear that specific findings have been given in respect of each of the charges after discussing the matter and, if that is so, we fail to understand as to how there could have been a remit to the inquiry authority for further inquiry. Indeed this resulted in second inquiry and not in a further inquiry on the same set of charges and the material on record. If this process is allowed the inquiries can go on perpetually until the view of the inquiry authority is in accord with that of the disciplinary authority and it would be abuse of the process of law. In that view of the matter we think that the order made by the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal is just and proper and, therefore, we decline to interfere with the same. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments, as it is evident in the present case that the enquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor in the subsequent enquiry conducted in the matter and therefore, the same deserves to be and is hereby quashed. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed with the following directions :
(a) The impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 03.11.2001 and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 28.02.2002 are hereby quashed.
(b) The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service forthwith. The respondents are directed to grant the consequential benefits to the petitioner i.e. annual increments, 50% back wages and subsequent promotions, in case any junior Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 4/22/2026 6:37:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12734 12 WP-6475-2013 has been considered and promoted to the next higher post.
(c) The aforesaid exercise of granting back wages, notional fixation of salary, increments, consequential promotion, if any, shall be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
16. The case of the petitioner herein is that the Presenting Officer was appointed but Enquiry Officer has acted as Presenting Officer as he conducted cross-examination of petitioner as well as witnesses which is in violation of provisions of clause (c) of sub-rule (5) of Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The said issue has already been decided in the case of Ram Prakash Gaya Prashad v. State of M.P., 2008 (4) MPLJ 35, K.C. Bhargava v. State of M.P., 2012 (4) MPLJ 244 and judgment dated 19.6.2007 passed by this Court in W.P. No.5449/2006 (Abde Kasim Sheikh v. State of M.P.).
17. The similar is the situation in the present case. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable as the enquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor and cross-examined the prosecution witnesses.
18. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed in the aforesaid cases. The counsel appearing for the respondents/State could not dispute the aforesaid fact and fairly submits that the enquiry officer himself has acted as a prosecutor in the matter and conducted the cross-examination of the witness which is not permissible.
19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with following directions:
(i) The impugned punishment order dated 20.12.2012 (Annexure P/3), appeal rejection order dated 14.3.2013 Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 4/22/2026 6:37:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12734 13 WP-6475-2013 (Annexture P/7-A) and mercy appeal rejection order dated 12.7.2013 passed by the concerned authorities are set aside.
(ii) The respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits to petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(iii) As petitioner has already retired, therefore, no liberty is granted to the respondents to take action against petitioner.
(iv) The Respondents are also directed to revise the PPO and GPO and pay the arrears of pension, in accordance with law within aforesaid period.
(v) If the respondents do not comply with the aforesaid directions, they shall pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment.
20. All interlocutory applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT) JUDGE Ahmad Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 4/22/2026 6:37:03 PM