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-608-2013unbiased 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 AM
9 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 handedSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/23/2026
6:05:20 AM
10 WP-608-2013over 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 conductedSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/23/2026
6:05:20 AM
11 WP-608-2013in 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 प्रभभाररीSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/23/2026
6:05:20 AM
13 WP-608-2013करक्तविभालिगीक 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-608-2013indispensable 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