Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Chandra Dixit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 13 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5808
1 WP-8260-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8260 of 2015
SURESH CHANDRA DIXIT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Katare - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G.K.Agarwal - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred seeking the following relief(s):
"(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed;
(ii) That, by issuance of the writ order or direction, the order dated 31.3.2015 Annexure P/1, order dated 14.7.2015 Annexure P/2 and the joint charge-sheet Annexure P/3 dated 4.12.2013 passed by the respondents may kindly be directed to be quashed and the respondents may kindly be further directed to release the difference of salary and allowance of the suspension period 15.7.2013 to 15.8.2013 and pay the outstanding arrears of increments which was deducted by the respondents.
(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioners. Costs of litigation may kindly be also awarded in favour of the petitioners."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable on 09.05.1983. Charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner as well as other co-delinquent. Inquiry Officer has been appointed and during the course of enquiry, Inquiry Officer himself conducted the cross-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 2/13/2026 4:08:50 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5808 2 WP-8260-2015 examination as is clear by Annexure P-4 dated 02.11.2014. Learned counsel submitted that since cross-examination has been conducted of by the Inquiry Officer, entire enquiry is vitiated because conduct of the Inquiry Officer is violative to M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. As Inquiry Officer has cross-examined the witnesses then he has not acted as a Judge and he has acted as a Prosecution Officer and and it is settled position that no one can be a good Judge for his own cause.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that thereafter enquiry report has been submitted before the concerned authority and the said authority has passed the punishment order dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure P-1), by which, the impugned punishment withholding with one annual increment for cumulative effect has been imposed and also mentioned that petitioner is not entitled for the salary of suspension period. Thereafter petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. Appeal has been rejected by order dated 14.7.2015 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if the minor penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner, then the petitioner is entitled for the salary of suspension period as per the judgment passed in the case of Y.S. Sachan Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2004 (1) MPHT 22 .
4. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State has vehemently opposed the contentions and supported the impugned order stating that the petitioner, who has participated in the departmental enquiry, has never raised such objection before the authorities. It is only after conclusion of the departmental enquiry and passing of the punishment order, such objection was taken for the first time in this writ petition. It is argued that the interference with respect to departmental enquiry is limited to the extent that there cannot be any reappreciation of evidence at this stage. In this regard, certain parameters have Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 2/13/2026 4:08:50 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5808 3 WP-8260-2015 been provided in the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to interference in the cases of departmental enquiry. Placing reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Union of India and others vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, it is found that the Inquiry Officer had admittedly cross-examined the petitioner. The Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma reported in (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 as follows:
"9. A domestic inquiry must be held by an unbiased person who is unconnected with the incident so that he can be Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 2/13/2026 4:08:50 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5808 4 WP-8260-2015 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 2/13/2026 4:08:50 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5808 5 WP-8260-2015 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 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."
7. On perusal of the aforesaid decision, it would clearly reveal that an Inquiry Officer cannot play the role of a Prosecutor and cross-examine the delinquent employee, whereas, in the present case, as already observed, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 2/13/2026 4:08:50 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5808 6 WP-8260-2015 petitioner has been elaborately cross-examined by the Inquiry Officer, and in such circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed on this ground only.
8. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the Inquiry 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 2/13/2026 4:08:50 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5808 7 WP-8260-2015 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 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."
9. The case of the petitioner herein is that the Inquiry Officer has acted as Prosecution Officer as he conducted cross-examination of the petitioner as well as witnesses, which is in violation of the 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 cases of Ram Prakash Gaya Prashad v. State of M.P. reported in 2008 (4) MPLJ 35, K.C. Bhargava v. State of M.P. reported in 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.).
10. The similar is the situation in the present case. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable as the Inquiry Officer has acted as a Prosecutor and cross- examined the prosecution witnesses.
11. 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 Inquiry Officer himself has acted as a Prosecutor in the matter and conducted the cross-examination of the witnesses, which is not permissible.
12. Considering the above, the impugned order dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure P/1), appeal rejection order dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure P-2) and enquiry report are hereby quashed. The petitioner is held to be entitled to get all consequential benefits. The petitioner is a retired person. Respondents are directed Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 2/13/2026 4:08:50 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5808 8 WP-8260-2015 to give all the consequential benefits to the petitioner and also directed to pay salary of suspension period (salary of suspension period minus suspension allowance) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
13. With the aforesaid, present petition stands allowed and disposed of.
14. All interlocutory applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT) JUDGE Abhi Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 2/13/2026 4:08:50 AM