Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jogendra Singh vs Union Of India Thr on 9 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20216
1 WP-8498-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 9 th OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8498 of 2015
JOGENDRA SINGH
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alok Katare - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar - Dy. Solicitor General for
respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
preferred seeking the following relief(s):
“(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be
allowed;
(ii) That, by issuance of the writ order or direction, the impugned order
of punishment dated 2.12.2015 Annexure P/1 dismissal from service
may kindly be directed to be quashed and the respondents may kindly
be directed to treat the petitioner continued in service with all monetary
and consequential benefits and the seniority.
(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon’ble
Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner. Costs of
litigation may kindly be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was initially
appointed on the post of Constable on 22.02.2006 and thereafter petitioner was
suspended vide order dated 12.06.2015, which was revoked on 09.09.2015 and
preliminary enquiry was conducted by Shri Himmat Singh, Dy. Commandant and
on the basis of preliminary enquiry, charge-sheet dated 24.07.2015 was issued and
Shri Ravi Mishra, Dy. Commandant was appointed as Inquiry Officer and Shri
Man K. Datta, Inspector CRPF, was appointed as Presenting Officer. It is further
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 7/10/2026
5:44:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20216
2 WP-8498-2015
submitted that Inquiry officer has recorded the statements of 8 witnesses and the
Presenting Officer has been appointed, but the Inquiry officer has cross-examined
the witnesses, which is evident from Pages No. 36, 39, 46, 49 of the petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the Inquiry Officer cross-
examined the witnesses, then it shows that the Inquiry Officer has not acted as a
Judge and departmental enquiry has been conducted with a bias mind to prove the
charges against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the
impugned order dated 02.12.2015 is a non-speaking and unreasoned order as
Disciplinary Authority has not considered the facts and grounds mentioned in the
reply to departmental enquiry and submitted that the petitioner has been dismissed
from service by non-speaking and unreasoned order.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently
opposed the contentions and supported the impugned order stating that the enquiry
has been conducted by the Inquiry Officer as per the procedure prescribed in the
Service Rules and further, the petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy
to file an appeal before the competent appellate authority.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The petitioner, who was appointed as a Constable on 22.02.2006, was
suspended on 12.06.2015, later reinstated on 09.09.2015, and subjected to a
departmental inquiry following a preliminary inquiry and charge sheet. Although a
Presenting Officer had been appointed, the Inquiry Officer himself cross-
examined the eight prosecution witnesses. Once the Inquiry Officer cross-
examined the witnesses, then it shows that the Inquiry Officer has not acted as a
Judge and departmental enquiry has been conducted with a bias mind to prove the
charges against the petitioner. The dismissal order dated 02.12.2015 was a non-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 7/10/2026
5:44:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20216
3 WP-8498-2015
speaking and unreasoned order, as the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider
the petitioner’s reply and the grounds raised in the departmental proceedings
before dismissing him from service.
6. Important part of the punishment order dated 02.12.2015 (Annexure P/1)
passed by Disciplinary Authority reads as under:-
“7. म, अधोह ता र जॉच अिधकार ारा तुत वभागीय जाँ च रप ट एवं
उसम उपल ध गवाह के बयान तथा सा य द तावेज का उपल ध िनयम /
अनुदेश के काश म सावधानी पूवक गहराई से विधवत अ ययन करने के
प ात पाता हूँ क जॉच अिधकार ारा वभागीय जॉच िनधा रत कया व िनयम
के अनु प क गई है तथा येक तर पर नैसिगक याय के िस ा त को
म यनजर रखते हुए अपचार को उसके बचाव म प रखने हे तु समुिचत, अवसर
दान कया गया है । अनुशासिनक ािधकार क है िसयत से वभागीय जाँ च पर
म, इस िन कष पर भी पहुँचा हूँ क अपचार ने दनांक 12/06/2015 को वॉटर
वा ट क फक ड गाड जैसे मह वपूण थल से बना स म अिधकार क
अनुमित से अनुप थत रहा. यूट के दौरान कै प से बाहर गया स म अिधकार
क अनुमित के बना यूट के दौरान कै प से बाहर जाकर शराब का सेवन कया
तथा कै प से बाहर जाकर शराब का सेवन करने के बाद शराब के नशे म कै प के
अंदर आने के िलए गेट नं० 1 के संतर एवं वहाँ पर मौजूद कई व र अिधका रय
के साथ अभ यवहार कया जो क वभागीय जॉच म भी पूणतः िस हुआ है व
अपचार ने भी अंत म अपना दोष वीकार कया है । इसके अलावा वभागीय जॉच
म अपचार को भी सभी अिभयोजन गवाह ारा एवं मे डकल जाँ च म भी यूट के
दौरान नशे क हालत म होना पाया गया है । अपचार ने यूट के दौरान घोर
लापरवाह , िशिथलता एवं अनुशासनह नता का कृ य कया है । अपचार का कृ य
एक गंभीर मामले क ण े ी म आता है । इस कार आरोपी के रपुबल बल जैसे
अनुशािसत बल म सेवा म रखने के यो य नह ं है ।
8. अतः म, अधोह ता र के० र०पु०बल अिधिनयम, 1949 क धारा 11 (1) के
साथ प ठत के० र०पु०बल िनयमावली 1955 के िनयम 27 के तहत द श य
का योग करते हुए वभागीय जाँ च पर िन निल खत आदे श पा रत करता हूँ:-
(1) अपचार बल सं या 065229153 िसपाह / बै ड जोगे िसंह के
अनुशासनह नता के कृ य करने का आद होने एवं सुधरने के भरपूर मौके
दये जाने के बावजूद भी उसके ारा अपने आचरण म कोई सुधार नह होने
के कारण अपचार बल सं या 065229153 िसपाह / बै ड जोगे िसंह,
मु यालय समवाय, ुप के , के रपुबल, वािलयर को सेवा से बखा त /
पद युित (DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE) क सजा द जाती है जो इस
आदे श के जार होने क ितिथ से भावी होगी । त स
ु ार उ ह इसी ितिथ से
इस ुप के क नफर से िनकाला जाता है ।”
7. From perusal of punishment order dated 02.12.2015 (Annexure P/1), it is
clear that the Disciplinary Authority, while passing imposing the punishment
order of a Government Servant, is exercising quasi-judicial powers and even thequasi-judicial orders must be speaking orders. The Disciplinary Authority must
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 7/10/2026
5:44:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:202164 WP-8498-2015
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.
8. 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.
9. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab
vs. 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.
10. 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 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 7/10/2026
5:44:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20216
5 WP-8498-2015
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″.
11. 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 indispensable a component of a
decision making 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”.
12. The Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India and others vs. Ram
Lakhan Sharma (2018) 7 SCC 670 has held as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 7/10/2026
5:44:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20216
6 WP-8498-2015
“31. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court speaking through
Justice R.V. Raveendran, CJ (as he then was) had occasion to consider the
question of vitiation of the inquiry when the Inquiry Officer starts himself
acting as prosecutor in Union of India and ors. vs. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui,
ILR (2004) MP 821. In the above case the Court considered Rule 9(9) (c) of
the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The Division
Bench while elaborating fundamental principles of natural justice
enumerated the seven well recognised facets in paragraph 7 of the judgment
which is to the following effect: “7. One of the fundamental principles of
natural justice is that no man shall be a judge in his own cause. This
principle consists of seven well recognised facets:
(i) The adjudicator shall be impartial and free from bias,
(ii) The adjudicator shall not be the prosecutor,
(iii) The complainant shall not be an adjudicator,
(iv) A witness cannot be the Adjudicator,
(v) The Adjudicator must not import his personal knowledge of the
facts of the case while inquiring into charges,
(vi) The Adjudicator shall not decide on the dictates of his Superiors or
others,
(vii) The Adjudicator shall decide the issue with reference to material
on record and not reference to extraneous material or on extraneous
considerations. If any one of these fundamental rules is breached, the
inquiry will be vitiated.”
32. The Division Bench further held that where the Inquiry Officer acts as
Presenting Officer, bias can be presumed. In paragraph 9 is as follows:
“9. A domestic inquiry must be held by an unbiased person who is
unconnected with the incident so that he can be 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:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 7/10/2026
5:44:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20216
7 WP-8498-2015
(i) The Inquiry Officer, who is in the position of a Judge shall not act as
a Presenting Officer, who is in the position of a prosecutor.
(ii) It is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to appoint a
Presenting Officer in each and every inquiry. Non- appointment of a
Presenting Officer, by itself will not vitiate the inquiry.
(iii) The Inquiry Officer, with a view to arrive at the truth or to obtain
clarifications, can put questions to the prosecution witnesses as also the
defence witnesses. In the absence of a Presenting Officer, if the Inquiry
Officer puts any questions to the prosecution witnesses to elicit the
facts, he should thereafter permit the delinquent employee to
crossexamine such witnesses on those clarifications.
(iv) If the Inquiry Officer conducts a regular examination-in-chief by
leading the prosecution witnesses through the prosecution case, or puts
leading questions to the departmental witnesses pregnant with answers,
or cross-examines the defence witnesses or puts suggestive questions to
establish the prosecution case employee, the Inquiry Officer acts as
prosecutor thereby vitiating the inquiry.
(v) As absence of a Presenting Officer by itself will not vitiate the
inquiry and it is recognised that the Inquiry Officer can put questions to
any or all witnesses to elicit the truth, the question whether an Inquiry
Officer acted as a Presenting Officer, will have to be decided with
reference to the manner in which the evidence is let in and recorded in
the inquiry.
Whether an Inquiry Officer has merely acted only as an Inquiry Officer
or has also acted as a Presenting Officer depends on the facts of each
case. To avoid any allegations of bias and running the risk of inquiry
being declared as illegal and vitiated, the present trend appears to be to
invariably appoint Presenting Officers, except in simple cases. Be that
as it may.”
34. We fully endorse the principles as enumerated above, however, the
principles have to be carefully applied in facts situation of a particular
case…………………………..”
36. Thus, the question as to whether Inquiry Officer who is supposed to act
independently in an inquiry has acted as prosecutor or not is a question of
fact which has to be decided on the facts and proceedings of particular case.
In the present case we have noticed that the High Court had summoned the
entire inquiry proceedings and after perusing the proceedings the High Court
came to the conclusion that Inquiry Officer himself led the examination in
chief of the prosecution witness by putting questions. The High Court further
held that the Inquiry Officer acted himself as prosecutor and Judge in the said
disciplinary enquiry. The above conclusion of the High Court has already
been noticed from paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment of the High court
giving rise to Civil Appeal No.2608 of 2012.
37. The High Court having come to the conclusion that Inquiry Officer has
acted as prosecutor also, the capacity of independent adjudicator was lost
which adversely affecting his independent role of adjudicator. In the
circumstances, the principle of bias shall come into play and the High Court
was right in setting aside the dismissal orders by giving liberty to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 7/10/2026
5:44:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20216
8 WP-8498-2015
appellants to proceed with inquiry afresh. We make it clear that our
observations as made above are in the facts of the present cases.”
13. On perusal of the aforesaid decision, it clearly reveals that an Inquiry
Officer cannot assume the role of a prosecutor and cross-examine the delinquent
employee. However, in the present case, as already observed, the witnesses have
been elaborately cross-examined by the Inquiry Officer, which is clear from Page
Nos.36, 39, 46 and 49 of the petition, therefore, in such circumstances, the
petition deserves to be allowed on this ground alone.
14. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the Inquiry
Officer himself has acted as a Prosecutor in the case and has cross-examined the
witnesses, which is not permissible in law. The aforesaid aspect was considered in
the case of Ram Prakash Singh vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P.No.414 of 2002
decided on 16.11.2009, wherein the case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey
reported in (2002) 10 SCC 471 was taken note of and it has been held as under :
“In the present case, no Presenting Officer was appointed by the disciplinary
authority and the subsequent enquiry officer himself has acted as Presenting
Officer, meaning thereby, as a prosecutor. The enquiry officer has handed
over the written questionnaire to the witnesses and on the basis of written
questionnaire, the enquiry has been concluded in the matter. ….
8. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey and another
(2002) 10 SCC 471 in paragraph 5 has held as under –
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in this case the
Board had examined the material on record and come to the conclusion
that four of the six charges could be proved on the available material,
which had not been properly examined in the earlier inquiry. In fact
from the order made by the Railway Board as well as from that part of
the file where the inquiry report made earlier is discussed, it is clear
that specific findings have been given in respect of each of the charges
after discussing the matter and, if that is so, we fail to understand as to
how there could have been a remit to the inquiry authority for further
inquiry. Indeed this resulted in second inquiry and not in a further
inquiry on the same set of charges and the material on record. If this
process is allowed the inquiries can go on perpetually until the view of
the inquiry authority is in accord with that of the disciplinary authority
and it would be abuse of the process of law. In that view of the matter
we think that the order made by the High Court affirming the order of
the Tribunal is just and proper and, therefore, we decline to interfere
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 7/10/2026
5:44:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20216
9 WP-8498-2015
with the same. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments, as it is evident in the present
case that the enquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor in the subsequent
enquiry conducted in the matter and therefore, the same deserves to be and is
hereby quashed. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed with the following
directions :
(a) The impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 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.”
15. The case of the petitioner herein is that the Presenting Officer was
appointed but Inquiry Officer has acted as Presenting Officer as he conducted
cross-examination of witnesses, which is in violation of 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 case of Ram
Prakash Gaya Prashad v. State of M.P., 2008 (4) MPLJ 35, K.C. Bhargava v. State
of M.P., 2012 (4) MPLJ 244 and judgment dated 19.6.2007 passed by this Court
in W.P. No.5449/2006 (Abde Kasim Sheikh v. State of M.P.).
16. The similar is the situation in the present case. Therefore, the impugned
order is unsustainable as the Inquiry Officer has acted as a Prosecutor and cross-
examined the prosecution witnesses. Consequently, the impugned order dated
02.12.2015 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to
reinstate the service of the petitioner forthwith. The respondents are also directed
to give all consequential benefits to petitioner excluding the monetary benefit and
the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of backwages on the principle of “no
work, no pay”. Respondents are directed to comply with the aforesaid directions
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 7/10/2026
5:44:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20216
10 WP-8498-2015
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
17. With aforesaid, petition stands allowed and disposed of.
18. All interlocutory applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Abhi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 7/10/2026
5:44:30 AM
