Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raj Kumar Parashar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10802
1 WP-3455-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3455 of 2017
RAJ KUMAR PARASHAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms. Krati Sachdev, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati, Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking following relief(s):-
“i) That, the impugned charge sheet dated 24.3.2017
Annexure P/10 may kindly be quashed with all consequential
effects and the petitioner be exonerated from all the charges.
ii) Cost of the petition be awarded or any other order or
direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in
the favour of the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that initially petitioner was
appointed on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Varg-3 under the
provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shala Shikshak (Employment and
Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005. It is submitted that order of absorption
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/7/2026
10:50:20 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10802
2 WP-3455-2017
was passed by appointing authority i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad
Panchayat and submitted that petitioner made a complaint to the SHO, Police
Station Sheopur on 15.08.2016 against one Pramod Sikarwar, Principal Govt.
Hazareshwar Higher Secondary School, Sheopur. It is further submitted that
due to the aforesaid reasons with mala fide intention, charge-sheet dated
24.03.2017 has been issued by District Education Officer and In-charge,
Additional Chief Executive Officer and submitted that charges mentioned in
the charge-sheet is pre-meditated and further submitted that while issuing
charge-sheet, the petitioner held guilty of misconduct which is reflected from
language of charge-sheet dated 24.03.2017 and Article of the charges
referred into it. It is further submitted that authority has already made his
mind before conducting any enquiry. It is submitted that as per M.P.
Panchayat Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditions of Services)
Rules, 2008, the competent authority is appointing authority i.e. CEO, Janpad
Panchayat/Additional Chief Executive Officer. Impugned charge-sheet has
been issued by District Education Officer, who is in-charge of the Additional
Chief Executive Officer. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 is in
hurry to impose penalty on the petitioner because from bare perusal of
charge-sheet, it appears that respondent No.2 has recorded the findings of
guilt against petitioner in the charge-sheet itself and hence it is clear that
conducted enquiry is nothing but merely an eye wash and authority has
already set up its mind to impose penalty. It is further submitted that in the
charge-sheet, vague charges have been mentioned. No specific charge has
been mentioned in the charge-sheet.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/7/2026
10:50:20 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10802
3 WP-3455-2017
3 . Per contra, learned Government Advocate submitted that as per
Rules of 2008, the disciplinary authority for the post of Sahayak Adhyapak is
appointing authority/Additional Chief Executive Officer, School Education
and Tribal Welfare Department, District Sheopur as the case may be and
submitted that by virtue of notification under Section 69 of the M.P.
Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, Block Education Officer will be Additional Chief
Executive Officer as has been declared by notification dated 09.07.1999. It is
further submitted that District Education Officer, District Sheopur is superior
authority of Block Education Officer. Therefore, charge-sheet contained in
Annexure P-8 has rightly been issued and there is no jurisdictional error in
issuing the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that the scope of challenging
the charge-sheet is very limited and petitioner cannot challenge the charge-
sheet as mere issuance of charge-sheet is not punishment and in departmental
enquiry, if it is found that charge-sheet proved against the petitioner, then can
only be petitioner punished. Therefore, at this stage, charge-sheet cannot be
challenged by petitioner.
4. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
5. Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Samvida Shala
Shikshak Varg-3 under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shala
Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005. Thereafter,
order of absorption was passed by appointing authority i.e. Chief Executive
Officer, Janpad Panchayat and petitioner made a complaint to the SHO,
Police Station Sheopur on 15.08.2016 against one Pramod Sikarwar,
Principal Govt. Hazareshwar Higher Secondary School, Sheopur. Due to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/7/2026
10:50:20 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10802
4 WP-3455-2017
aforesaid reasons with mala fide intention, charge-sheet dated 24.03.2017
has been issued by District Education Officer and In-charge, Additional
Chief Executive Officer. While issuing charge-sheet, the petitioner held
guilty of misconduct which is reflected from language of charge-sheet dated
24.03.2017 and Article of the charges referred into it. It is further submitted
that authority has already made his mind before conducting any enquiry. It is
submitted that as per M.P. Panchayat Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and
Conditions of Services) Rules, 2008, the competent authority is appointing
authority i.e. CEO, Janpad Panchayat/Additional Chief Executive Officer.
Impugned charge-sheet has been issued by District Education Officer who is
in-charge of the Additional Chief Executive Officer. Respondent No.2 was in
hurry to impose penalty on the petitioner because from bare perusal of
charge-sheet, it appears that respondent No.2 has recorded findings of guilt
against petitioner in the charge-sheet itself. For ready reference relevant part
of charge-sheet is reproduced hereinunder :-
"आरोप मांक 01 :-
आपके ारा शासक य सेवक के दािय य के िनवहन म
लापरवाह बरती गयी है ।
आरोप मांक 02-
आपके ारा िस वल सेवा आचरण िनयम 1965 के िनयम
का उ लंघन कया गया है ।"
(1) वतं ता दवस 2016 के काय म क क यूटर कृ त परे खा
का दािय व आपको दान करते हुये उ मह वपूण काय को पूण कर
अधोह ता रकता को तुत कये जाने का दािय व आपको सौपा गया
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/7/2026
10:50:20 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10802
5 WP-3455-2017
था। इस हे तु आपका दािय व या क काय म म पु ट पाये जाने पर आप
उसम त काल संशोधन करते हुये अधोह ता रकता के सम तुत
कया जाना सुिन त कर, क तु आपके ारा उ काय को ग भीरता से
न लेते हुये पद य दािय व के िनवहन म लापरवाह तथा वे छाचा रता
दिशत क गयी जसके िलये आप पूण पेण उ रदायी तथा दोषी है ।
(2) आपके ारा दनांक 14 अग त 2016 को शा० क या उमा व योपुर
म उप थत होकर ी मोद िसंह िसकरवार, ाचाय शा० ी हजारे र
उमा व योपुर से अभ तापूवक यवहार कया गया। जब क शासक य
सेवा का यवहार अपने से व र के ित शालीन तथा माधुय होना
चा हय, क तु आपके ारा अपने से ब र के ित अभ तापूण यवहार
कया जाना िस वल सेवा आचरण िनयम के वपर त है । जसके िलये
आप पूण पेण उ रदायी तया दोषी है ।”
Hence it is clear that conducted enquiry is nothing but merely an eye
wash and authority has already set up its mind to impose penalty. In the
charge-sheet, vague charges have been mentioned. No specific charge has
been mentioned in the charge-sheet.
6. Relevant part of Rule 8 of Rules of 2008 is being reproduced
hereinunder :-
8. Other Conditions-
S. Adhyapak Appellate
Disciplinary Authority
o. Samvarg Authority
1 ..........
2 .............
Appointing Authority/Additional Chief Executive
Sahayak District
3 Officer School Education/ Tribal Welfare
Adhyapak Collector
Department as the case may be
7. Once, there is specific Rules of 2008 is available and in which
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/7/2026
10:50:20 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:108026 WP-3455-2017
disciplinary authority has already mentioned and therefore, reliance placed
by respondents about notification dated 09.07.1999 is having no effect as it is
settled position that Policy/Administrative Instruction cannot overrule the
Rules. So far as contention of respondents that charge-sheet has been issued
by higher authority to the disciplinary authority is not also a ground to issue
charge-sheet as similar type of controversy has already been decided by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Govind Singh Yadav Vs. State of
M.P. & Others , in WP No.4067/2011 decided on 01.03.2017. The relevant
part of which is reproduced below for ready reference :-
The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that vide Notification No.C-6-7-96-3-1 dated 23rd May, 1996,
published in M.P Rajpatra (Ext.) dated 10.01.1007, the State Govt.
has delegated the powers to the Collector to exercise the powers
under Rule 9 to suspend and Rule 10 to impose minor penalty on
all the employees of Class III and Class IV of all the departments
(except Police workers) posted in their District with effect from
23rd May, 1996. The Collector has exceeded the jurisdiction by
imposing the major penalty which could not have been done. The
Collector had only the jurisdiction to the extend of imposing
minor penalty. In the instant case, since the Collector has imposed
the major penalty, the impugned order is not sustainable.
The Third submission is that the Collector is not the appointing
authority of the petitioner. The Director of Agricultural is the
appointing authority and, therefore, if any major penalty is
required to be imposed on the petitioner that can only be imposed
by the appointing authority and not by the Collector.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/State by
filing the return contended that no illegality has been committed
by the Collector in passing the order dated 07.10.2010 (AnnexureSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/7/2026
10:50:20 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:108027 WP-3455-2017
P/2). The petition deserves to be dismissed.
Rule 10 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules 1966 is reproduced as under:-
“10. Penalties:- The following penalties may, for good and
sufficient reason and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a
Government servant, namely :-
Minor penalties:-
(i) Censure;
(ii) withholding of his promotion;
(iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary
loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of
orders;
(iv) withholding of increments of pay or stagnation allowance;
Major penalties:-
(v) reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a
specified period, with further directions as to whether or not, the
Government servant will earn increments of pay “or the stagnation
allowance, as the case may be” during the period of such reduction
and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will
not have the effect of postponing the future increments or his pay
or stagnation allowance.
Note:- The expression “reduction to a lower stage in the time scale
of pay” shall also include reduction of pay from the stage of pay
drawn by a Government servant on account of grant of stagnation
allowance, if any.
(vi) reduction to a lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or Service
which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the
Government servant to the time-scale of pay, grade, post or
Service from which he was reduced, with or without further
directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grads or post
or Service from which the Government servant was reduced and
his seniority and pay on such restoration to that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/7/2026
10:50:20 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10802
8 WP-3455-2017
grade, post or service;
(vii) compulsory retirement;
(viii) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification
for future employment under the Government;
(ix) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a
disqualification for future employment under the Government:
(xxx)”
Admittedly, the Collector, vide order dated 07.10.2010 has
imposed the penalty of stoppage of withholding of one increment
with cumulative effect which is a major penalty. From bare perusal
of the Rule quoted herein-above, it is clear that the punishment
imposed does not fall under the category of minor penalties and as
such, the Collector did not posses the power to impose major
penalty. The appellate authority without considering the
application for condonation of delay dismissed the appeal as time
barred.
In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that the
impugned order of punishment imposing stoppage of one
increment with cumulative effect is a manor penalty, therefore, the
order dated 07.10.2010 (Annexure P/2) as well as order dated
04.01.2011 (Annexure P-1) are hereby set-aside. However, the
respondents are free to proceed in accordance with law if so
advised.
The petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.”
8. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.04.2018
passed in WP. No.14665/2017 [Ramesh Deen Baiga Vs The State Of
Madhya Pradesh] has already held that being a higher authority to prescribed
authority, higher authority is not empowered to issue major penalty. Relevant
portion of order passed in Ramesh Deen Baiga (supra), for ready reference
and convenience, is reproduced below:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/7/2026
10:50:20 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10802
9 WP-3455-2017
“The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant
Teacher on 27.06.1996 since then he is performing his work
without any complaint. Respondent no.4 has issued a show cause
notice to the petitioner on 16.06.2017. The petitioner filed the
reply to the said show cause notice on 19.06.2017. Respondents
thereafter passed an order dated 01.09.2017 thereby suspending
the services of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged this
order on the ground that the petitioner is a Class-III employee and
their appointing and disciplinary authority is the Assistant
Commissioner for the purpose of imposing any of the major or
minor penalties. The State Government has delegated the power to
take disciplinary action in respect of Class-III and Class IV
employees to the Collector. Thus, the impugned order issued by
respondent no.2 is without jurisdiction. He further state that vide
order dated 23.05.1999 the State Government has delegated the
power to the Commissioner (Revenue) within Division to take
disciplinary action against the employees of Class-I and Class-II
officers. In the present case as the petitioner is a Class-III
employee, therefore, the Commissioner (Revenue) has no
jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner. He further submits that when
the statute confers power on an authority and prescribes the mode
for exercising that power then the same has to be exercised by that
authority alone. As per the mode prescribed by the statute, the
Commissioner is neither the appointing or disciplinary authority of
the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on
the order passed by this Courts in W.P. No.3380/2013 in the case
of Hari Shankar Shukla Vs. State of M.P. and Others decided on
06.03.2013. Respondents have filed their reply and in the reply
respondents have stated that the appointing and disciplinary
authority of the petitioner is the Assistant Commissioner and the
Rule 9 of the CCA Rules, prescribed that the appointing authority
or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary
authority may place a Government servant under suspension. In
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/7/2026
10:50:20 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10802
10 WP-3455-2017
the present case, the Assistant Commissioner is the appointing
authority which is subordinate to the Commissioner, therefore, as
per Rule 9 of the CCA Rules, 1966, the Commissioner has power
to suspend the petitioner. Respondents have further submits that
the petitioner was negligent in discharging his duties and on
account of the negligent act of the petitioner, the Government has
suffered the lost of Rs.1,45,000/-. Respondents have further stated
that the suspension is not a punishment, therefore, before passing
the order of suspension no opportunity of hearing is required to be
given.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner was
appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher which is a Class-III
post. The State Government has issued a circular dated 02.08.1999
thereby delegating the powers for imposing of minor punishment
to the Division Commissioner in respect of Class-I and Class-II
employees. As per the said circular, the Commissioner is not
entitled to place the Class-III employees under suspension. The
competent authority to place the petitioner under suspension is the
Collector. The powers under Rule 9 and Rule 10 of the CCA
Rules, 1966 have been delegated to the Commissioner in respect
of Class-I and Class-II employees. In the present case, the
Commissioner has passed the order dated 01.09.2017 thereby
placing the petitioner under suspension. The said order is
challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner being
a Class-III employee and, therefore, the Commissioner has no
power to suspend the petitioner. The contention of learned
Government Advocate that as per Rule 9 of the CCA Rules, the
appointing authority or any other authority to which it is
subordinate or the disciplinary authority may place a Government
servant under suspension cannot be accepted because in the
present case, the Assistant Commissioner of Tribal Welfare
Department is the appointing authority and the Assistant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/7/2026
10:50:20 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10802
11 WP-3455-2017
Commissioner is the subordinate to the Commissioner of that
Department and not the Commissioner of Revenue Department.
This Court in the case of Hari Shankar Shukla (supra) has held as
under-:
“I have considered the respective submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the
petitioner is a Class III employee. From the order dated
23.05.1996, it is apparent that the powers under Rule 9
and Rule 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rule, 1966 in
respect of Class-III & Class-IV employees, have been
delegated to the Collector and thus, the Collector is the
competent authority to place the petitioner under
suspension. It is well settled in law that when a statute
confers power on an authority and prescribes the mode
for exercising that power, the same has to be exercised
by that authority alone and it has to be exercised only in
the mode which is prescribed by the statute. The power
cannot be exercised by a higher authority. Any other
mode of performance is necessarily forbidden. It is
equally well settled in law that if the power conferred on
the authority is exercised by that authority on the
dictates of higher authority, the same is vitiated in law.
[See : Commissioner of Police Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji ,
AIR 1952 SC 16 and Chairman-cum- M.D., Coal India
Ltd. Vs. Ananta Saha, 2011 AIR SCW 3240].”
In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order
dated 01.09.2017 is hereby set aside. However, the
Collector is at liberty to take action in accordance with
law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/7/2026
10:50:20 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10802
12 WP-3455-2017
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joint Action Committee
of AIR Line Pilots’ Association of India (ALPAI) And Others Vs. Director
General of Civil Aviation And Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435 has held
as under:
“26. The contention was raised before the High Court that the
Circular dated 29-5-2008 has been issued by the authority having
no competence, thus cannot be enforced. It is a settled legal
proposition that the authority which has been conferred with the
competence under the statute alone can pass the order. No other
person, even a superior authority, can interfere with the
functioning of the statutory authority. In a democratic set-up like
ours, persons occupying key positions are not supposed to
mortgage their discretion, volition and decision-making authority
and be prepared to give way to carry out commands having no
sanctity in law. Thus, if any decision is taken by a statutory
authority at the behest or on suggestion of a person who has no
statutory role to play, the same would be patently illegal. (Vide
Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commr. of Bihar [(1969) 1 SCC 308
: AIR 1970 SC 1896] , Chandrika Jha v. State of Bihar [(1984) 2
SCC 41 : AIR 1984 SC 322] , Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of
Punjab [(2001) 6 SCC 260 : AIR 2001 SC 2524] and Manohar Lal
v. Ugrasen [(2010) 11 SCC 557 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 524 : AIR
2010 SC 2210] .)
27. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Commr. of
Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji [1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16],
Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia [(2004)
2 SCC 65 : AIR 2004 SC 1159] and Pancham Chand v. State of
H.P. [(2008) 7 SCC 117 : AIR 2008 SC 1888] observing that an
authority vested with the power to act under the statute alone
should exercise its discretion following the procedure prescribed
therein and interference on the part of any authority upon whomSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/7/2026
10:50:20 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1080213 WP-3455-2017
the statute does not confer any jurisdiction, is wholly unwarranted
in law. It violates the constitutional scheme.
28. In view of the above, the legal position emerges that the
authority who has been vested with the power to exercise its
discretion alone can pass the order. Even a senior official cannot
provide for any guideline or direction to the authority under the
statute to act in a particular manner.”
10. Admittedly, the appointing authority of petitioner is the Chief
Executive Officer Janpat Panchayat, Bhitarwar, Gwalior and as per the
Notification No.C-6- 7-96-3-1 dated 23rd May, 1996, published in M.P
Rajpatra (Ext.) dated 10.01.2007, the State Govt. has delegated the powers to
Chief Executive Officer to exercise the powers under Rule 9 to suspend and
Rule 10 to impose minor penalty on all the employees of Class III and Class
IV of all the departments (except Police workers) posted in their District
with effect from 23rd May, 1996. Certainly, the Collector has exceeded his
jurisdiction by issuing charge sheet dated 25.4.2013 which could not have
been done. Notification. No. C-6-7-96-3-1. dated 23rd May, 1996, Published
in M.P Rajpatra (Ext.), dated 10.1.1997, p. 53 is reproduced below for ready
reference and convinience:
[2] Notfn. No. C-6-9(A)-99-3Ek, dated 21.2.2000, Pub. In M.P.
Rajpatra Pt. I. Dated 3-3-2000, p. 476 -Without prejudice to the
generality of the powers conferred under the Madhya Pradesh
Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1966,
and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 9,
sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 and Rule 24 of the said rules. The
Governor of Madhya Pradesh, hereby empowers the Chief
Executive Officer of the concerned Zila Panchayat to suspend or
to impose minor penalties as are specified in clause (i) to clauseSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/7/2026
10:50:20 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1080214 WP-3455-2017
(iv) of Rule 10 of the said rules, in respect of such class III and
class IV Government servants of the department of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare, Agriculture Panchayat and
Rural Development, Veterinary, Fisheries, Women and Child
Development, Punblic Health and Family Welfare, Medical
Education, School Education Social Welfare and Rural Industries
whose services have been placed by the State Government under
Control of Panchayats under the provisions of clause (xii) of sub-
section (1) of Section 52 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj
Adhiniyam, 1993 (No.1 of 1994) an such Government servant
may prefer an appeal against the order of the Chief Executive
Officer to the head of the concerned department.
11. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid impugned charge-sheet
dated 24.03.2017 (Annexure P-8) is hereby quashed. However, respondents
are free to proceed against petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised.
12. Accordingly, present petition stands allowed and disposed of to the
extent indicated above.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
“R”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 4/7/2026
10:50:20 AM
