Madhya Pradesh High Court
Praveen Dixit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 August, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23393
1 WP-11400-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 4th OF AUGUST, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11400 of 2025
PRAVEEN DIXIT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. MPS Raghuvanshi learned Senior Counsel with Mr.
D.P.Singh- Advocates for the petitioner.
Ms. Smrati Sharma - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed u/Art. 226 of the
Constitution praying for the following reliefs:-
“(i) That, the impugned order dated 12.03.2025
(Annexure P/1), charge-sheet dated 23.01.2025
(Annexure P/2) and order dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure
P/3) passed by the respondent No.2 may kindly be
quashed and set aside.
(ii) That, it may be held that the charges against the
petitioner are not made out.
(iii) That, for exercising such powers without application
of mind, appropriate orders may be passed as deem fit by
the Hon’ble Court.
(iv) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case may also be granted.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
is presently working as District Prosecution Officer, District Gwalior.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 8/6/2026
10:50:43 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23393
2 WP-11400-2025
The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant District
Prosecution Officer (ADPO) through the Public Service Commission
(PSC). Subsequently, the petitioner was found fit, eligible, and qualified
to be posted as In-charge District Prosecution Officer, which is a
promotional post to the ADPO. In compliance with the said order, the
petitioner joined the post of District Prosecution Officer.
3. It is submitted that thereafter, a complaint was made against the
petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, respondent No. 2 issued a
charge sheet under Rule 14(3) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that in the aforesaid charge-sheet, Charge No. 1 relates to
Crime No. 505/2023, registered under Sections 395, 342, 294 of the IPC
read with Sections 11 and 13 of the M.P.D.V.P.K. Act. The allegation is
that the petitioner gave the legal opinion to extend an undue benefit to
the accused persons in the said crime. However, it is submitted that the
petitioner never gave any legal opinion in the said case. The legal
opinion was given by another ADPO, and that too was against the
accused persons.
4. It is further submitted that Charge No. 2 relates to Crime No.
31/2022, registered under Sections 376, 506, and 34 of the IPC. The
allegation is that the petitioner gave the legal opinion to protect the
accused and extend an undue benefit to the accused person. It is
submitted that this allegation is also incorrect, as the legal opinion in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 8/6/2026
10:50:43 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23393
3 WP-11400-2025
said case was given by Shri M.L. Gupta, ADPO, and not by the
petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 24.01.2025. After
receiving the charge sheet, the petitioner submitted an application
seeking certain documents. However, the respondents have not supplied
the documents sought by the petitioner. It is submitted that the legal
opinions relating to Crime No. 505/2023 and Crime No. 31/2022, which
form the basis of Charge Nos. 1 and 2, were never given by the
petitioner. The said opinions were given by another ADPO working in
the office of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the impugned charge sheet has been issued by the
respondents without proper application of mind. It is submitted that the
impugned charge sheet is nothing but an abuse of power by respondent
No. 2, as no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
the present petition is premature. It is submitted that the petitioner has an
adequate opportunity to respond during the enquiry. It is further
submitted that the petitioner’s contention that the opinions were not
given by him, is a matter of defence, which can be established during the
departmental enquiry. The correctness of the charges cannot be
examined in a writ petition at this premature stage.
7. It is further submitted that a charge sheet can be challenged only
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 8/6/2026
10:50:43 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23393
4 WP-11400-2025
on limited grounds, namely, that it has not been issued by the competent
authority or that it has been issued with mala fide intention. In the
present case, no allegation of mala fide has been made in the petition. It
is also submitted that no person has been impleaded by name against
whom any allegation of mala fide has been made.
8. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has been issued after
due consideration of the material available on record. A preliminary
enquiry was conducted, and after considering the findings of the
preliminary enquiry, the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. It is
submitted that the charge sheet merely contains allegations which are
required to be examined during the departmental enquiry, and no
prejudice has been caused to the petitioner at this stage. It is further
submitted that the charge sheet has been issued by the competent
authority in accordance with the statutory rules. In the preliminary
enquiry, the petitioner was found prima facie guilty of the allegations
levelled against him. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings have
been initiated in accordance with law.
9. It is further submitted that the petition is premature and does not
call for any interference. The petitioner has every opportunity to raise all
his defences before the disciplinary authority in accordance with law. It
is also submitted that this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction,
cannot quash the charge sheet by examining the merits of the allegations
at this stage.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 8/6/2026
10:50:43 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23393
5 WP-11400-2025
10. To bolster her submission, learned counsel for the respondents
placed upon the decisions of Coordinate Bench as well as this Court in
the case of Manoj Kumar Awasthi Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors. passed
in W.P. No. 36271 of 2024 on 04.12.2024 and in the case of Krishnadev
Singh Kushwah Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors. passed in W.P. No. 26865
of 2026 on 21.07.2026.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. The moot question for consideration is as to whether a writ
petition against departmental charge-sheet is maintainable or not?
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another
Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28, has held as
under:-
“13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this
Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet
or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar
State Housing Board vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh and
others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another
vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC
1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner,
Mysore and others 2001 (10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs.
Brahm Datt Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.”
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Transport Commissioner,
MadrasVs. A. Radha Krishna Moorthy reported in (1995) 1 SCC 332,
has held as under:-
“7. So far as the truth and correctness of the charges is
concerned, it was not a matter for the Tribunal to go into-
more particularly at a stage prior to the conclusion of theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 8/6/2026
10:50:43 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:233936 WP-11400-2025
disciplinary enquiry. As pointed out by this Court
repeatedly, even when the matter comes to the Tribunal
after the imposition of punishment, it has no jurisdiction
to go into truth of the allegations/charges except in a case
where they are based on no evidence, i.e., where they are
perverse. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is akin to that
of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
It is power of judicial review. It only examines the
procedural correctness of the decision-makingprocess.
For this reason the order of the Tribunal insofar as it
goes into or discusses the truth and correctness of the
charges, is unsustainable in law.”
15. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others
Vs. Upendra Singh reported in (1994) 3 SCC 357, has held as under:-
“5. The said statement of law was expressly affirmed by
a seven-Judge Bench in Ujjam Bai v. State of UP. The
reason for this dictum is self-evident. If we do not keep
to the broad and fundamental principles that regulate the
exercise of jurisdiction in the matter of granting such
writs in English law, the exercise of jurisdiction becomes
rudderless and unguided; it tends to become arbitrary and
capricious. There will be no uniformity of approach and
there will be the danger of the jurisdiction becoming
personalized. The parameters of jurisdiction would vary
from Judge to Judge and from Court to Court. (Some
say, this has already happened.) Law does advance.
Jurisprudence does undoubtedly develop with the
passage of time, but not by forgetting the fundamentals.
You have to build upon the existing foundations and not
by abandoning them. It leads to confusion; it does not
assist in coherence in thought or action.
6. In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry
the tribunal or court can interfere only if on the charges
framed (read with imputation or particulars of the
charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity
alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges
framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the tribunal
has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 8/6/2026
10:50:43 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:233937 WP-11400-2025
the charges. The tribunal cannot take over the functions
of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of
the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go
into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary
proceedings, if the matter comes to court or tribunal, they
have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges
or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the
case may be. The function of the court/tribunal is one of
judicial review, the parameters of which are repeatedly
laid down by this Court. It would be sufficient to quote
the decision in H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation
Officer-cum- Assessing Authority, Karnal v. Gopi Nath
& Sons. The Bench comprising M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.
(as he then was) and A.M. Ahmadi, J., affirmed the
principle thus: (SCC p.317, para 8)“Judicial review, it is trite, is not directed against
the decision but is confined to the decision-making
process. Judicial review cannot extend to the
examination of the correctness or reasonableness of
a decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of
judicial review is to ensure that the individual
receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the
authority after according fair treatment reaches, on
a matter which it is authorized by law to decide, a
conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court.
Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but
a review of the manner in which the decision is
made. It will be erroneous to think that the Court
sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the
decision making process but also on the correctness
of the decision itself.”
7 . Now, if a court cannot interfere with the truth or
correctness of the charges even in a proceeding against
the final order, it is ununderstandable how can that be
done by the tribunal at the stage of framing of charges?
In this case, the Tribunal has held that the charges are not
sustainable (the finding that no culpability is alleged and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 8/6/2026
10:50:43 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23393
8 WP-11400-2025
no corrupt motive attributed), not on the basis of the
articles of charges and the statement of imputations but
mainly on the basis of the material produced by the
respondent before it, as we shall presently indicate.”
16. A Division Bench of this Court in case of Jagdish Baheti Vs.
High Court of M.P. and others reported in 2015 (2) MPHT 382, has held
as under:-
“7. In the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and
Others vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC
565, the Supreme Court 7 W.P.No.14137/2023 has held
that ordinarily a writ petition does not lie against the
charge-sheet or a show cause notice as it does not give
rise to any cause of action unless the same has been
issued by an authority not competent to initiate
departmental proceedings. The Supreme Court has laid
down the law in this regard by relying on several
previous decision, in the following terms:-
“10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie
against a charge sheet or show cause notice for
the reason that it does not give rise to any
cause of action. It does not amount to an
adverse order which affects the right of any
party unless the same has been issued by a
person having no jurisdiction/competence to
do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is
infringed. In fact, charge sheet does not
infringe the right of a party. It is only when a
final order imposing the punishment or
otherwise adversely affecting a party is
passed, it may have a grievance and cause of
action. Thus, a charge sheet or show cause
notice in disciplinary proceedings should not
ordinarily be quashed by the Court. [Vide :
State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, (1987) 2
SCC 79; Executive Engineer, Bihar State
Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh &Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 8/6/2026
10:50:43 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:233939 WP-11400-2025
Ors., (1996) 1 SCC 327; Ulagappa & Ors. v.
Div. Commr., Mysore & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC
639; Special Director & Anr. v. Mohd.
Ghulam Ghouse & Anr., (2004) 3 SCC 440;
and Union of India & Anr. v. Kunisetty
Satyanarayana , (2006) 12 SCC 28]. 11. In
State of Orissa & Anr. v. Sangram Keshari
Misra & Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 311, this Court
held that normally a charge sheet is not
quashed prior to the conclusion of the enquiry
on the ground that the facts stated in the
charge are erroneous for the reason that
correctness or truth of the charge is the
function of the disciplinary authority. [See
also: Union of India & Ors. v. Upendra Singh
(1994) 3 SCC 357].
12. Thus, the law on the issue can be
summarised to the effect that chargesheet
cannot generally be a subject matter of
challenge as it does not adversely affect the
rights of the delinquent unless it is established
that the same has been issued by an authority
not competent to initiate the disciplinary
proceedings. Neither the disciplinary
proceedings nor the charge sheet be quashed at
an initial stage as it would be a premature
stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are
not liable to be quashed on the grounds that
proceedings had been initiated at a belated
stage or could not be concluded in a
reasonable period unless the delay creates
prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity
of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be
taken into consideration while quashing the
proceedings.”
8. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above
quoted decisions, therefore, makes it clear that generally
and ordinarily a writ petition is not maintainable against
a chargesheet as issuance of the same does not give rise
to a cause of action on account of the fact that it does not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 8/6/2026
10:50:43 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23393
10 WP-11400-2025
adversely effect the rights of a party except in cases
where the charge-sheet has been issued by an authority
not competent to do so. The Supreme Court has also held
that neither disciplinary proceedings nor a charge-sheet
can be quashed at the initial stage on merits as it would
be a pre-mature stage to deal with the merits of the case.
The Supreme Court has also held that at the stage of
issuance of charge-sheet the correctness or veracity of
the charges cannot be looked into in writ proceedings as
that aspect is the domain of the disciplinary authority and
not the High Court.”
17. A coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Ranjeet Singh
Kumpawat Vs. Central Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank and others
reported in 2016 (IV) MPJR 150, has held as under:-
“7. This is settled in law that chargesheet can be
interfered with at this stage on limited grounds. In the
case of Union of India and Others Vs. Upendra Singh-
(1994) 3 SCC 357, the Apex Court held that charge-sheet
can be interfered with only when there is a patent lack of
jurisdiction in issuing the charge-sheet. Correctness of
the allegations cannot be gone into at this stage. The
Court cannot take-over the functions of the disciplinary
authority. Truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter
for the disciplinary authority to go into. In the case of
Transport Commissioner, Madras-5 Vs. A. Radha
Krishna Moorthy-(1995) 1 SCC 332 the Apex Court has
taken the same view. The Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Jagdish Baheti Vs. High Court of M.P and
others-2015(2) MPHT 382 has considered various
judgments of the Supreme Court and opined that
ordinarily a writ petition is not maintainable against the
charge-sheet. The charge-sheet cannot be quashed at
initial stage on merits as it would be a premature stage to
deal with the merits of the case.
8. No doubt, has held in State of Punjab (supra),
interference in a charge-sheet can be made if allegations
of malafide are established. In the present case, theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 8/6/2026
10:50:43 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2339311 WP-11400-2025
petitioner has alleged malafide against respondent No.3
only on the ground that earlier he passed certain
administrative orders against the petitioner.”
18. Upon consideration of the material available on record, it is
evident that the departmental proceedings are still at the stage of
issuance of the charge sheet. At this stage, the petitioner has an adequate
opportunity to submit his reply and raise all factual and legal defences
before the disciplinary authority during the course of the departmental
enquiry.
19. It is well settled that judicial review of a charge sheet is
confined to limited grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction or competence
of the authority issuing the charge sheet. In the present case, the record
does not disclose any allegation that the charge sheet has been issued by
an incompetent authority. Likewise, no specific plea of mala fide has
been raised against any identified individual, nor has any person against
whom such allegation could be attributed been impleaded as a party to
the proceedings.
20. The material available on record further reveals that the charge
sheet has been issued after a preliminary enquiry. The competent
authority, upon consideration of the material collected during the
preliminary enquiry, found a prima facie case warranting initiation of
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The charge sheet merely
contains allegations which are yet to be examined during the regular
departmental enquiry, and no finding of guilt has been recorded against
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 8/6/2026
10:50:43 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:23393
12 WP-11400-2025
the petitioner at this stage.
21. The relevant extract of preliminary enquiry reads as under for
ready reference and convenience;
उ सा ी ी अवनीश गु ा के कथन से एवं िशकायतकता ी
अशीष कुमार चतुवद के जांच कथन क कं डका 15 से इस
बात क पु होती है क ी वीण द त जला अिभयोजन
अिधकार वािलयर के संबंध म एक त य यह भी है क इनके
ारा बडे लेने दे न एवं ाचार वाले करण म जनम
आरो पय का बचाया गया या झूठा फंसाया गया ह उनम
विधक राय यह वयं तय करते ह। ले कन विधक राय पर
ह ता र संबंिधत थाने के हसाब से आवं टत एड पीओ से
ह ता र न कराकर कसी खास अपने शािगद एड पीओ से
कराते ह।
*** *** ***
उपरो संपूण िशकायत जांच एवं तुत द तावेज /जांच
रपोट के आलोक म जला अिभयोजन अिधकार वािलयर का
अिभमत प दश पी 05 म यह संवी ा क गई है क उप. िन.
सु िच िशवहरे ारा उिचत कायवाह क ह। जब क जांचकता
अिधकार ी ऋ षकेष मीना त कालीन अित. पुिलस अधी क
वािलयर ारा अपनी जांच रपोट दश पी. 07 म ववेचना
अिधकार उप. िन. सु िच िशवहरे के व आरोप मा णत
पाया ह। अतः ववेचना अिधकार ारा अपने दािय व को पूण
करने म क गई लापरवाह के िलये जो जानबूझकर कर क गई
हो उसका लाभ अपवाद व प भी नह ं िमलना चा हये।
18. “उपरो िशकायत जांच म तुत सा य क सा य का
सू म अवलोकन करने पर एवं जांच म तुत द तावेज /जांच
रपोट/ विधक अिभमत क स या पत सम त अिभलेख के
अवलोकन से सा य के आधार पर ी वीण द त जला
अिभयोजन अिधकार , जला वािलयर के व वचारणीय
ब द ु मांक 01 एवं 02 मा णत पाता हू।ं य क कायालय
मुख होने के नाते अपने अधीन थ अिधका रय के काय के
ित जबावदे ह होता ह य द उसके सं ान म सभी व तु थित
प होती है ।”
मानीनय संचालक/महािनदे शक महोदय, लोक अिभयोजन
संचालनालय भोपाल (म. ) के संदिभत आदे शानुसार जांचSignature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 8/6/2026
10:50:43 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2339313 WP-11400-2025
रपोट ितवेदन आव यक कायवाह हे तु ीमान क ओर
सादर े षत ह।
22. It is also apparent that the charge sheet has been issued by the
competent authority in accordance with the applicable statutory rules.
Since the disciplinary proceedings are still pending and the petitioner has
an effective opportunity to defend himself before the enquiry officer, no
prejudice can be said to have been caused merely by the issuance of the
charge sheet.
23. So far as the truth and correctness of the charges is concerned,
it was not a matter for the Court to go into-more particularly at a stage
prior to the conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry. The court can
interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or
particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity
alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are
contrary to any law. At this stage, the Court has no jurisdiction to go into
the correctness or truth of the charges. The Court cannot take over the
functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the
charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Judicial
review, it is trite, is not directed against the decision but is confined to
the decision-making process. Judicial review cannot extend to the
examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a
matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the
individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authoritySignature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 8/6/2026
10:50:43 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2339314 WP-11400-2025
after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorized
by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court.
Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the
manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that
the Court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision
making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself. A writ
lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge sheet does
not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing
the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may
have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge sheet or show cause
notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by
the Court.
24. In these circumstances, the challenge to the charge sheet is
premature. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, does not ordinarily undertake an examination
of the correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the charge
sheet at this stage. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby
dismissed.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGEvpn/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 8/6/2026
10:50:43 AM
