Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi [Sharma] vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2026
1 WP-608-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 22nd OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 608 of 2013
VIJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI [SHARMA]
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Katare - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.M.Patel - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:
"(i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Writ Petition;
(ii) That, order of punishment Annexure P/1 dated 23.1.2012 passed by the respondent no.4 may kindly be directed to be set aside.
(iii) That, the order Annexure P/2 dated 11.4.2012 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner by the respondent no.3 may kindly be directed to be set aside.Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/23/2026 6:05:20 AM
2 WP-608-2013
(iv) That, the order Annexure P/3 dated 8.10.2012 passed by the respondent no.2 confirming the order of punishment may kindly be directed to be set aside and the recovery from the salary may kindly be directed to be paid along with interest @ 12% per annum.
(v) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on 25.02.1982 and thereafter promoted on the post of Head Constable. At the relevant point of time, when petitioner was posted as Head Constable in Police Station Shivpuri, a Criminal Case No.442/2011 was registered under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506-B, 34 of IPC against Rahul Jain and Dilip alia Tau Lakhera. SHO, Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri directed the petitioner orally that in case, the accused persons who were arrested, furnish surety, then they be released on bail as the offence registered against them are bailable in nature. The petitioner approached the accused persons to arrest and took them in custody and made a telephonic call to the S.H.O. Dilip Yadav that the accused persons have been arrested, but they are willing to furnish surety as the offences are bailable and under his oral instructions, the petitioner took their bail. However, making false allegations against the petitioner, charge-sheet dated 15.09.2011 (Annexure P-5) has been issued by S.P., Shivpuri. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a detailed Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/23/2026 6:05:20 AM 3 WP-608-2013 reply to the charge-sheet. Thereafter, Inquiry officer and Presenting Officer has been appointed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that thereafter Inquiry Officer has recorded statement of the petitioner and other witnesses and Inquiry Officer has cross-examined the petitioner and asked 23 questions from the petitioner. Presenting Officer has been appointed and cross-examination of the petitioner has been conducted by the Inquiry Officer and Inquiry Officer has not acted as a Judge and he is biased and anyhow he wanted to prove the charges and role of Inquiry Officer is just like a Judge, but he has acted as a Presenting Officer, which is clear from the cross-examination of the petitioner (Annexure P-10) dated 23.11.2011 and further submitted that the entire enquiry proceedings are vitated as the Inquiry Officer himself conducted the enquiry by recording statements on his own, not through the Presenting Officer, therefore, entire enquiry report as well as all consequential action taken on the basis of enquiry report are liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel submitted that thereafter the disciplinary authority has supplied copy of enquiry report to the petitioner and petitioner submitted detailed reply to the enquiry report and disciplinary authority has not considered the facts and grounds mentioned in the reply and by non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 23.01.2012 (Annexure P-1), punishment of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect has been imposed by S.P., Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/23/2026 6:05:20 AM 4 WP-608-2013 Shivpuri. Thereafter, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner by non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 11.04.2012 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, petitioner has preferred a mercy petition, that has also been rejected by order dated 26.09.2012 (Annexure P-3). Thus, the present petition is preferred.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State has vehemently opposed the contentions and supported the impugned orders 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 re-appreciation of evidence at this stage. In this regard, certain parameters have 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.
6. Heard both the counsel and perused the record.
7. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/23/2026 6:05:20 AM 5 WP-608-2013 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/23/2026 6:05:20 AM 6 WP-608-2013 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.Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/23/2026 6:05:20 AM
7 WP-608-2013
(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, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/23/2026 6:05:20 AM 8 WP-608-2013 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.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/23/2026 6:05:20 AM9 WP-608-2013
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."
8. 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 petitioner has been elaborately cross-examined by the Inquiry Officer, and in such circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed on this ground only.
9. 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 petitioner, 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/23/2026 6:05:20 AM 10 WP-608-2013 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/23/2026 6:05:20 AM 11 WP-608-2013 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 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."
10. The case of the petitioner herein is that Presenting Officer was appointed and Inquiry Officer has acted as Presenting Officer as he conducted cross-examination of the petitioner, 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. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/23/2026 6:05:20 AM 12 WP-608-2013 No.5449/2006 (Abde Kasim Sheikh v. State of M.P.).
11. The similar is the situation in the present case. Therefore, the impugned orders are unsustainable as the Inquiry Officer has acted as a Prosecutor and cross-examined the petitioner/prosecution witness.
12. 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 petitioner/witness, which is not permissible.
13. Important part of the punishment order dated 23.01.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by Disciplinary Authority reads as under:-
''2-उपररककक्तक अधधिररपपक्तक आररपपोंक परक पविभभागगीयक जभाजांचक शगी अविधिधेशक प्रक्तभापक धसजांह, अननुपविभभागगीयक अधधिकभाररीक (पनुधलिस) कररैरभाक दभारभा पपूरर्णक ककीक गयगी।क जभाजांचक अधधिकभाररीक दभारभाक जभाजांचक ममेंक आररपक क्रमभाजांकक १ अप्रमभाणरक्तक क्तथभाक आररपक क्रमभाजांकक 2 एविजांक 03 करक पपूरर्णक्त; प्रमभाणरक्त पभायभाक।कप्रमभाणरक्तकआररपककधेक पररप्रधेककयकममेंक कभायभार्णलियगीन पतकक्रमभाजांक पनुअक /धशवि/पगीए/पविजभा/16/11 ददिनभाजांकक ०३-०१-१२ ककधेक सजांलिगनक जभाजांच अधधिकभाररीक करक प्रधक्तविधेदिनक भधेजकरक आररपगीक सधेक धलिणखिक्तक बचभावि अभयभाविधेदिनकचभाहभाकगयभा।कआररपगीकदभारभाकइसकपतककरकददिनभाजांकक4-04-12 करकप्रभाप्तकदकयभाकगयभा।कआररपगीकदभारभाकददिनभाक 11-01-12 करकधलिणखिक्त उत्तरक प्रसक्तनुक्तक दकयभाक गयभा।क आररपगीक कधेक पविरधदिक अधधिररपपक्तक आररप क्रमभाजांकक०१कजभाजांचकममेंक प्रमभाणरक्तकनहरीकपभायभाकगयभाकहरै।कआररपक क्रमभाजांक 2 ककीकपनुपष्टिकअधभयरजनककसभाकयकशगीकघनशकयभामकभसगीन, पनुनगीक्तकभसगीन एविजांक धनररीक्षककशगीकददिलिगीपकधसजांहकयभादिविकक्तथभाकयशपभालिकधसजांहकरभाजपपूक्त, अधक्तररक्तकपनुधलिसकअधिगीक्षककधशविपनुररीककधेक कथनपोंक सधेक हरक्तगीकहरै।कआररप क्रमभाजांकक 03 कधेक सजांदिभर्णक ममेंक धनररीक्षकक ददिलिगीपक यभादिवि, थभानभाक प्रभभाररी Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/23/2026 6:05:20 AM 13 WP-608-2013 करक्तविभालिगीक दभारभाक कथनक ममेंक यहक सपष्टिक दकयभाक गयभाक हरै दकक आररपगी दभारभाकददिनभाक 14-08-11 करकअपनगीकमजर्जीकसधेकक्तशकदिरीककपचभार्णकक्रमभाजांकक४ कक्तभाक दकयभाक गयभाक णजसक परक उनकधेक हसक्तभाक्षरक नहरीक हरै।क प्रधिभान आरक्षकक 898 पविजयक चक्तनुविर्वेदिरीक पनुधलिसक लिभाईनक धशविपनुररीक दभारभाक जभाजांच अधधिकभाररीककधेक प्रधक्तविधेदिनकपरकइसकप्रकभारककभाककरईकठरसकक्तथयक / क्तकर्ण प्रसक्तनुक्तक नहरीजांक दकयभाक गयभाक णजससधेक प्रमभाणरक्तक आररपपोंक ककीक गमभगीरक्तभा कमकहरकसकधे।कअक्ततःकप्रमभाणरक्तककआररपपोंक ककीकगमभगीरक्तभाककधेक क्रमकममें उनकहमेंक ममौजपूदिक विधेक्तनक सधेक एकक विभापरर्णकक विधेक्तनक दृधदिरीक कधेक बरभाबरक ककी रभाधशकएककविरर्णक कधेक धलिएकसजांचयगीक प्रभभाविकसधेक अविनक्तककरनधेक कभाकदिणण ददियभाकजभाक्तभाकहरै।
आररपगीककधेकधनलिजांबनकअविधधिकददिनभाजांकक14-08-11 सधेक27-10- 11 सभगीकप्रयरजनककधेकधलिएकधनलिजांबनकममेंकशनुमभारकककीकजभाक्तगीकहरैकअथभार्णक्तकइस अविधधिकममेंक जरकविधेक्तनकएविजांक भतकक्तधेक प्रभाप्तकहरकचनुकधेक हहैंक उनकधेक अधक्तररककक्त औरककनुछकदिधेयकनहरीजांकहरगभा।''
14. From perusal of the punishment order, it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority, while 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.
15. The relevant part of appeal rejection order dated 11.04.2012 (Annexure P/2) passed by Appellate Authority reads as under:-
"अपगीलिभाथर्जीक प्रधिभानक आरक्षकक 898 पविजयक चक्तनुविर्वेदिरी, णजलिभा धशविपनुररीकदभारभाकप्रसक्तनुक्तकक्तथयकसमभाधिभानकभारककनहरीजांकहहैंककयपोंदकक:-Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/23/2026 6:05:20 AM
14 WP-608-2013
01. पविभभागगीयक जभाजाँचक ममेंक उपलिबधिक सभाकयक एविजांक अधभयरजन सभाणक्षयपोंक दभारभाक प्रसक्तनुक्तक अधभयरजनक प्रदिशर्णक सधेक उसकधेक पविरुद्धक आररप क्रमभाजांकक02 विक03 पपूरर्णक्ततःकप्रमभाणरक्तकपभायधेकगयधेकहरै.
02. थभानभाक प्रभभाररीक दभारभाक आररपगीगरपोंक करक थभानधेक लिभाकर जमभानक्तकमनुचलिकधेकपरकछरणनधेककधेकधनदिर्वेशकउसकरकददियधेकगयधेकथधे.
03. उसकधेक दभारभाक प्रकररक ममेंक थभानभाक प्रभभाररीक दभारभाक ददियधेक गयधे धनदिर्वेशककभाकपभालिनकनहरीजांकदकयभाकगयभाकथभा.
04. थभानभाकप्रभभाररीकदभारभाकप्रकररककधेकआररपपयपोंककरकधगरफफ कक्तभार करकथभानधेकलिभानधेककधेकधनदिर्वेशकददियधेकगयधेकथधे.
05. अपरभाधिक कभाक थभानभाक प्रभभाररीक ककीक क्तरफक सधेक क्तसदिरीकक पचभार्ण असतयकलिधेखिककरकचभालिभानककक्तभाकदकयभाकगयभाकहरै.
इसक प्रकभारक उपररक्तभाननुसभारक समसक्तक अधभलिधेखिपों, क्तथयपोंक कधे अविलिरकनक एविजांक पविशधेररक उपरभाजांक्तक अपगीलिभाथर्जीक प्रधिभानक आरक्षकक 898 पविजयकचक्तनुविर्वेदिरी, णजलिभाकधशविपनुररीककधेकदभारभाकप्रसक्तनुक्तकअपगीलिकअभयभाविधेदिन ममेंक उललिधेणखिक्तक क्तथयक धनरभाधिभारक हरकरक समभाधिभानकभारकक नहरीजांक हहैं अपगीलिभाथर्जीक नधेक अपगीलिकममेंक दकसगीकपविधधिककयभाकक्तथयभातमककआधिभारककभा पविविररकनहरीजांक ददियभाकहरै, णजससधेक उसककीकअपगीलिकपरकपविचभारकदकयभाकजभा सकधे. अपगीलिभाथर्जीककधेकपविरुद्धकआररपपक्तकआररपकउपररक्तभाननुसभारकप्रमभाणरक्त हरै, णजसकधेक धलियधेक उसधेक पनुधलिसक अधिगीक्षकक धशविपनुररीक दभारभाक ददियभाक गयभा दिणणक उधचक्तक हरै. अक्ततःक अपगीलिभाथर्जीक प्रधिभानक आरक्षकक 898 पविजय चक्तनुविर्वेदिरी, णजलिभाक धशविपनुररीक कभाक अपगीलिक अभयभाविधेदिनक पविचभाररपरभाजांक्त धनरसक्तकदकयभाकजभाक्तभाकहरै."
16. From perusal of the appellate order, 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/23/2026 6:05:20 AM 15 WP-608-2013 justifiable reasons or grounds in support of its conclusion. On perusal of the appellate order, it does not appear to be a speaking one.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. In the same judgment in paragraph 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarifies that the Government does not have 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. Paragraph 7 of the said decision is quoted Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/23/2026 6:05:20 AM 16 WP-608-2013 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".
20. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/23/2026 6:05:20 AM 17 WP-608-2013 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.
(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".
21. Considering the above, the impugned orders dated 23.01.2012 (Annexure P-1), 11.04.2012 (Annexure P-2) and mercy appeal rejection order dated 26.09.2012 (Annexure P-3) are hereby quashed. The petitioner is held to be entitled to get all consequential benefits. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to give all the consequential Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/23/2026 6:05:20 AM 18 WP-608-2013 benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
22. The petitioner has retired now, therefore, no liberty is granted to the respondents to take fresh action against the petitioner.
23. With the aforesaid, present petition stands allowed and disposed of.
24. All interlocutory applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT) JUDGE Abhi Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/23/2026 6:05:20 AM