Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Singh Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 27 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31099
1 WP. No. 2141 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 27th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2141 of 2016
JAGDISH SINGH RATHORE
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya - Deputy Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):
"The petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and thereby issuing a writ/ orders / directions / mandamus to quash the impugned orders as contained in Annexure P/1 and P/2 in the interest of justice. To pass such other further order (s) deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. Cost may also be awarded. Cost may also be awarded."
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Teacher and in the month of January 2010, the election of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/6/2025 12:01:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31099 2 WP. No. 2141 of 2016 Panchayat was under process and he was appointed as Presiding Officer for Polling Booth Centre No.135 of District Morena under the provision of Section 28
(a) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. It is submitted that petitioner was deemed to be on deputation at that time. As such, all the disciplinary powers were vested with the Election Commission or with the Departmental Disciplinary Authority. It is further submitted that during polling, some persons ceased/ encroached the polling booth, interfered with the election process and snatched the ballot papers and also put water into ballot box and against such actions of some persons of village, petitioner had immediately informed the Zonal Officer and other high officials and on advice of higher officers, petitioner was directed to make an FIR. After such incident, petitioner enquired and tried to identify such un- authorized elements and after collecting their names, petitioner made police report and Crime No.31/10 dated 21.01.2010 was registered under Sections 353, 395, 171 (Ga) of IPC and under Sections 11 and 13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that names of such accused persons were collected by petitioner from the villagers and he was not knowing the same personally. It is further submitted that consequent upon FIR, such accused persons were tried by the Special Judge and subsequently, they were exonerated by the court of law and during the trial, petitioner had given his evidence but he could not depose their names at the time of evidence i.e. after a period of one year because such persons were not belonging to the village of petitioner, not knowing the accused persons, whose names were gathered from the villagers and all such incident was made in a few minutes, so it was not possible for petitioner to identify all the persons after a period of one year from the incident. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that after acquittal of accused, third respondent issued a charge-sheet Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/6/2025 12:01:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31099 3 WP. No. 2141 of 2016 under Rule 14 read with Rule 18 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for brevity "the Rules"). Petitioner immediately replied to the show-cause notice. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and report was submitted on 30.08.2012. The respondents issued show- cause notice along with report of Enquiry Officer and asked the reply. Petitioner immediately replied to the same. It is further submitted that without considering the reply, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 7.7.2015 (Annexure P-1) thereby withholding two increments without cumulative effect. Piqued by the said punishment, petitioner submitted appeal which was also rejected by order dated 02.02.2016 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that petitioner was deemed to be on deputation under Election Commission and as such, powers of any disciplinary action were vested only with the Election Commission or by the Departmental Authority i.e. Education Department. It is submitted that as per order passed in K. K. Singh Chouhan Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2013(1) MPLJ 694, the impugned action cannot be initiated on the advice of other authorities, who are not competent to do so and as such, entire action in itself is void ab initio. It is further submitted that enquiry was ordered by the Collector by invoking the powers under the Rules while there are no powers delegated to him.
3. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent/State that charge-sheet was issued against petitioner and other employees. Those employees were present on the spot at the time of incident for which FIR was registered by Police Station Joura, District Morena (M.P.) at Crime No.31/10 dated 21.01.2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 395, 171 (Ga) of IPC and under Sections 11 and 13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act. Petitioner was present on the spot but he Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/6/2025 12:01:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31099 4 WP. No. 2141 of 2016 refused to give statement during police investigation. Petitioner gave statement before the court but he did not support the story of prosecution. He turned hostile in the court, resulting into the acquittal of accused persons. It is further submitted that departmental enquiry was conducted by Additional Collector and after giving due opportunity of hearing to petitioner, order of imposing punishment has been passed. Learned counsel for respondent/State further submitted that petitioner had filed appeal before the Commissioner which too was rejected by considering all the grounds raised by petitioner. It is further submitted that disciplinary action has been taken against petitioner in accordance with the Rules and as the Collector is the competent authority to issue minor punishment to Class III and Class IV government servants and as petitioner is Class III employee Collector has rightly imposed the minor punishment of withholding two increments without cumulative effect. It is further submitted that petitioner turned hostile in the court against the stand of State Government/prosecution and therefore the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act are not attracted in the present matter. It is further submitted that as the regular departmental enquiry was conducted in which proper opportunity of hearing was given to petitioner and despite the major misconduct only minor punishment of withholding two increments without cumulative effect has been imposed against petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
5. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be apposite to consider the scope of interference by this Court in departmental matters.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Another Vs. N. Gangaraj reported in (2020) 3 SCC 423 has held as under:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/6/2025 12:01:59 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31099 5 WP. No. 2141 of 2016 "8. We find that the interference in the order of punishment by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court suffers from patent error. The power of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process.
The power of judicial review conferred on the constitutional court or on the Tribunal is not that of an appellate authority.
9. In State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, a three- Judge Bench of this Court has held that the High Court is not a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. The Court held as under :
(AIR pp. 1726-27, para 7) "7. ... The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant : it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence."
10. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80], again a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held that power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the court. The court/tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/6/2025 12:01:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31099 6 WP. No. 2141 of 2016 findings on the evidence. It was held as under : (SCC pp. 759-60, paras 12-13) "12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of the Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/6/2025 12:01:59 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31099 7 WP. No. 2141 of 2016
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co- extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364, this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
11. In High Court of Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil, (2000) 1 SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144, this Court held that interference with the decision of departmental authorities is permitted if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such enquiry while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was held as under : (SCC p. 423, para 16) "16. The Division Bench [Shashikant S. Patil v. High Court of Bombay, 1998 SCC OnLine Bom 97 : (2000) 1 LLN 160] of the High Court seems to have approached the case as though it was an appeal against the order of the administrative/disciplinary authority of the High Court. Interference with the decision of departmental authorities can be permitted, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such enquiry or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion made by the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds very similar to the above.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/6/2025 12:01:59 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31099 8 WP. No. 2141 of 2016 But we cannot overlook that the departmental authority (in this case the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court) is the sole judge of the facts, if the enquiry has been properly conducted. The settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution."
12. In State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584:(2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 721, this Court held that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be ground for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. The Court held as under:(SCC pp. 587-88, paras 7 & 10) "7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/6/2025 12:01:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31099 9 WP. No. 2141 of 2016 extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80, Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806 and Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036, High Court of Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil, (2000) 1 SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144].) * * *
10. The fact that the criminal court subsequently acquitted the respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt, will not in any way render a completed disciplinary proceeding invalid nor affect the validity of the finding of guilt or consequential punishment. The standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from the standard of proof required in departmental enquiries, the same charges and evidence may lead to different results in the two proceedings, that is, finding of guilt in departmental proceedings and an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt in the criminal proceedings. This is more so when the departmental proceedings are more proximate to the incident, in point of time, when compared to the criminal proceedings. The findings by the criminal court will have no effect on previously concluded domestic enquiry. An employee who allows the findings in the enquiry and the punishment by the disciplinary authority to attain finality by nonchallenge, cannot after several years, challenge the decision on the ground that subsequently, the criminal court has acquitted him."
13. In another judgment reported as Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 554, this Court held that while reappreciating evidence the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The Court held the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings : (SCC p. 617, para 13) Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/6/2025 12:01:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31099 10 WP. No. 2141 of 2016 "13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
14. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the judgment reported as Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 335, wherein this Court held that if the disciplinary authority records a finding that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which is unreasonably arrived at, the writ court could interfere with the finding of the disciplinary proceedings. We do not find that even on touchstone of that test, the Tribunal or the High Court could interfere with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority It is not the case of no evidence or that the findings are perverse. The finding that the respondent is guilty of misconduct has been interfered with only on the ground that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the Department. The discrepancies in the evidence will not make it a case of no evidence. The inquiry officer has appreciated the evidence and returned a finding that the respondent is guilty of misconduct.
15. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and had passed an order of punishment. An appeal before the State Government was also dismissed. Once the evidence has been accepted by the departmental authority, in exercise of power of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/6/2025 12:01:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31099 11 WP. No. 2141 of 2016 judicial review, the Tribunal or the High Court could not interfere with the findings of facts recorded by reappreciating evidence as if the courts are the appellate authority. We may notice that the said judgment has not noticed the larger Bench judgments in State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 as mentioned above. Therefore, the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court suffer from patent illegality and thus cannot be sustained in law."
7. The Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde reported in (2006) 7 SCC 212 has held a under:
"6. Before we proceed further, we may observe at this stage that it is unfortunate that the High Court has acted as an Appellate Authority despite the consistent view taken by this Court that the High Court and the Tribunal while exercising the judicial review do not act as an Appellate Authority:
"Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by reappreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority." (See Govt. of A.P. v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan [(2006) 2 SCC 373 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 316], SCC p. 379, para 11.)
9. It is impermissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence which had been considered by the inquiry officer, a disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority. The finding of the High Court, on facts, runs to the teeth of the evidence on record.
12. From the facts collected and the report submitted by the inquiry officer, which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority, active connivance of the respondent is eloquent enough to connect the respondent with the issue of TDRs and overdrafts in favour of Bidaye.Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/6/2025 12:01:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31099 12 WP. No. 2141 of 2016
15. In Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur [(1972) 4 SCC 618 : (1972) 2 SCR 218] it is held as under: (SCC p. 623, para 15) A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the inference that lender was a person likely to have official dealings with the respondent was one which a reasonable person would draw from the proved facts of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on it. The Letters Patent Bench had the same power of dealing with all questions, either of fact or of law arising in the appeal, as the Single Judge of the High Court. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court. A finding cannot be characterised as perverse or unsupported by any relevant materials, if it was a reasonable inference from proved facts. (SCR p. 219)
16. In Union of India v. Parma Nanda [(1989) 2 SCC 177 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 303 : (1989) 10 ATC 30] it is held at SCC p. 189, para 27 as under:
"27. We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the inquiry officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/6/2025 12:01:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31099 13 WP. No. 2141 of 2016 imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is mala fide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern itself with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the inquiry officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter."
17. In Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan [(1998) 4 SCC 310 :
1998 SCC (L&S) 1129] this Court held at SCC p. 315, para 12 as under:
"12. After hearing the rival contentions, we are of the firm view that all the four charge-sheets which were enquired into relate to serious misconduct. The respondent was unable to demonstrate before us how prejudice was caused to him due to non-supply of the enquiry authority's report/findings in the present case. It needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer. If this is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired. It is for this reason, we are of the opinion that the High Court had committed an error while setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent on the ground of prejudice on account of non-furnishing of the enquiry report/findings to him."
18. In Chairman and MD, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar [(2003) 4 SCC 364 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 468] this Court held at SCC pp. 376-77, para 14 as under:
"14. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/6/2025 12:01:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31099 14 WP. No. 2141 of 2016 discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik [(1996) 9 SCC 69 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1194] it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court."
19. In Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC v. Hoti Lal [(2003) 3 SCC 605 :
2003 SCC (L&S) 363] it was pointed out as under: (SCC p. 614, para
10) "If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable."
20. In Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam [(2005) 3 SCC 241 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 395] this Court at SCC p. 247, para 15 held:
"15. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the principles of the Evidence Act have no application in a domestic enquiry."
8. From perusal of record, it is seen that charge-sheet was issued against petitioner and other employees. Those employees were present on the spot at the time of incident for which FIR was registered by Police Station Joura, District Morena (M.P.) at Crime No.31/10 dated 21.01.2010 for the offence punishable Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/6/2025 12:01:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31099 15 WP. No. 2141 of 2016 under Sections 353, 395, 171 (Ga) of IPC and under Sections 11 and 13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act. Petitioner was present on the spot but he refused to give statement during police investigation. Petitioner gave statement before the court but he did not support the story of prosecution. He turned hostile in the court, resulting into the acquittal of accused persons. Departmental enquiry was conducted by Additional Collector and after giving due opportunity of hearing to petitioner, order of imposing punishment has been passed. Feeling dissatisfied, petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner which too was rejected by considering all the grounds raised by him. The disciplinary action has been taken against petitioner in accordance with the Rules and as the Collector is the competent authority to issue minor punishment to Class III and Class IV government servants and as petitioner is Class III employee Collector has imposed the minor punishment of withholding two increments without cumulative effect. It is seen that petitioner turned hostile in the court against the stand of State Government/prosecution and therefore the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act are not attracted in the present matter. Moreover, the regular departmental enquiry was conducted in which proper opportunity of hearing was given to petitioner and only minor punishment of withholding two increments without cumulative effect has been imposed on petitioner.
9. This Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India, cannot act as an Appellate Authority and cannot substitute its own findings by reversing the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. This Court can interfere with the findings of fact, provided they are based on no evidence.
10. After going through the record of case, pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the submissions put forth by learned counsel for petitioner are Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/6/2025 12:01:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31099 16 WP. No. 2141 of 2016 misconceived. The Courts will not act as an appellate court and re-assess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be a ground for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries, the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from the standard of proof required in departmental enquiries.
11. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based;
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; and
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.
12. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and passed an order of punishment. An appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed. Once the evidence has been accepted by the departmental authority, in exercise of power of judicial review, this Court could not interfere with the findings of facts recorded by re-appreciating evidence as if the courts are the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/6/2025 12:01:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31099 17 WP. No. 2141 of 2016 appellate authority. The courts will, however, interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations.
13. It is impermissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence which had been considered by the enquiry officer, a disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority. Jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority. In the respondent/department, absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty need to be preserved by every employee. The departmental enquiries are decided on preponderance of probability.
14. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat) Judge pd Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/6/2025 12:01:59 PM