Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Babita Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14127
1 WP. No. 1509 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 28th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1509 of 2018
SMT. BABITA SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhanu Prakash Singh - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Rinkesh Goyal - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri Aditya Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent No.4.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):-
“(i) That, impugned orders contained in Annexure P-1, P-2 and P-3
may kindly be declared as illegal and the same may kindly be
quashed. Petitioner may kindly be reinstated with full wages and all
consequential benefits.
(ii) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper may also be given to the petitioner along with costs.”
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in pursuance of the
resolution dated 26.08.2000, petitioner was appointed on the post of Anganwadi
Worker vide order dated 30.09.2000. Since then petitioner had been serving with
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 5/6/2026
8:04:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14127
2 WP. No. 1509 of 2018
full devotion and sincerity on said post. Thereafter, respondent No.5 issued a
show-cause notice dated 15.03.2012 to petitioner alleging that she had not been
submitting monthly reports and survey reports since two months and directing
her to file reply by 25.03.2012 stating that as to why she should not be removed
from said post. Thereafter, petitioner submitted her reply dated 18.03.2012 to the
said show-cause notice and stated that she was submitting said reports and this
fact was also evident by perusal of her honorarium-sheet which was prepared
only after perusal of her reports. Thereafter, respondent No.6, the project officer,
passed order dated 26.04.2012 whereby it was alleged that petitioner had not
submitted reply to said show-cause notice dated 15.03.2012 and she used to
disobey the orders/notices issued to her regarding irregularities committed by her.
It is submitted that thereafter without considering the aforesaid reply stigmatic
termination order dated 26.04.2012 was issued by respondents. Piqued by this,
petitioner preferred appeal against the said order before the Collector and the
same was dismissed on 24.07.2012. Being dissatisfied, petitioner filed second
appeal before respondent No.2 i.e. Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior
(M.P.) who in turn allowed the appeal vide order dated 24.01.2013 and set aside
the order passed by the Project Officer and the matter was remanded to Project
Officer to decide the case of petitioner after extending proper opportunity of
being heard to petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner submitted representation before
the Project Officer along with joining report requesting for making compliance of
order dated 29.04.2013. Petitioner submitted reminder dated 30.04.2013,
however, respondents again passed the order dated 17.09.2013 which is non-
speaking and unreasoned by which petitioner was removed from services. It is
submitted that thereafter petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 5/6/2026
8:04:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14127
3 WP. No. 1509 of 2018
and the appellate authority did also not consider the aforesaid aspect and rejected
the appeal by order dated 06.08.2016. Irked by the same, petitioner filed second
appeal before Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior who too
rejected the appeal vide order dated 31.05.2017. It is submitted by learned
counsel for petitioner that order dated 17.09.2013 is a non-speaking and
unreasoned order. The previous termination order dated 26.04.2012 (Annexure P-
9) was also stigmatic in nature and again without considering the facts and
grounds and without conducting regular departmental enquiry services of
petitioner were terminated by passing a non-speaking and unreasoned order dated
17.09.2013.
3. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent/State, while opposing the submissions put forth by learned counsel
for petitioner and supporting the order impugned, that the services of petitioner
have rightly been terminated by the respondents and the Appellate Authority has
also, after considering the facts and grounds mentioned in appeal, rightly rejected
the same.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The initial order dated 26.04.2012 (Annexure P/9) is a stigmatic order,
which is reproduced below:-
**vkaxuokMh dsUæ ihry dkj[kkuk Øekad 01 in inLFk vkaxuokMh vfHkdrkZ
dks dk;kZy;hu i= Øekad vk-okLFkk@11&12@Xokfy;j@fnukad 15@3@2012 }kjk
dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= tkjh fd;k x;k ,oa fnukad 25@3@12 rd tcko çLrqr
djuk Fkk ijUrq lacaf/kr }kjk vkt fnukad rd dksbZ tcko çLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA
iwoZ esa Hkh lacaf/kr dk;ZdrkZ dks le;≤ ij dk;Z esa ykijokgh o mnklhruk
ojrus ds laca/k esa uksfVl tkjh ,oa psrkouh i= tkjh fd;s x;s gS ijUrq blds
ckotwn Hkh lacaf/kr dks dk;Z esa lq/kkj ifjyf{kr ugha gqvkASignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 5/6/2026
8:04:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:141274 WP. No. 1509 of 2018
fnukad 25@4@2012 dks lacaf/kr dk;ZdrkZ }kjk dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr
ifjos{kd ,oa LVkQ ds lkFk vR;Ur vHkæ O;ogkj dj vi’kCnksa dks ç;ksx fd;k
x;k ,oa /kefd;ka nh xbZ tks vuq’kklu ghurk dh ijkdk”Bk gSA
vr% lacaf/kr dk;ZdrkZ Jherh cchrk ‘kekZ vkaxuokMh dk;ZdrkZ dks ,rn~ }kjk
in ls i`Fkd fd;k tkrk gSA**
6. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any
regular departmental enquiry. Since order Annexure P-9 dated 26.04.2012 is
stigmatic in nature, therefore, regular departmental enquiry ought to have been
held by respondents. The judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
WP No.23267/2019 (Omprakash Gurjar vs. Panchayat and Rural
Development & Ors.), also the order dated 12.09.2023 passed in WP
No.19117/2022 (Hukumchand Solanki vs. Panchayat and Rural
Development & Ors.) and the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in WP
No.14663/2022 (Arvind Malviya vs. State of MP & Ors.) are worth
mentioning.
7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi Vs.
Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal & Others reported in 2001(3) MPLJ
616 and Jitendra Vs. State of M.P. & Others reported in 2008(4) MPLJ 670
has rightly held that the order of termination is stigmatic in nature as the same
entails serious consequences on future prospects of respondent and therefore, the
same ought to have been passed after holding an inquiry. This Court is further
supported in its view by the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Malkhan Singh Malviya Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR(2018)
MP 660. The Apex Court while deciding the case of Khem Chand vs. The
Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 1958 SC 300, had an occasion to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 5/6/2026
8:04:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14127
5 WP. No. 1509 of 2018
summarize the concept of reasonable opportunity, relevant para of which reads as
under:-
“(19) To summarize: the reasonable opportunity envisaged by the
provision under consideration includes-
(a) An opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his
innocence, which he can deny only do if he is told what the
charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which
such charges are based;
(b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the
witnesses produced against him and by examining himself or
any other witnesses in support of his defence;
(c) an opportunity to make his representation as to why the
proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him, which he
can only do if the competent authority, after the enquiry is
over and after applying his mind to the gravity or otherwise of
the charges proved against the government servant tentatively
proposes to inflict one of the three punishments and
communicates the same to the government servant.”
8. From the aforesaid, it is clear that order dated 26.04.2012 is stigmatic in
nature, therefore, without conducting regular departmental enquiry impugned
order cannot be issued. The impugned termination order has been issued without
giving any proper opportunity of hearing to petitioner and without conducting
departmental enquiry. From the language of impugned order, it is clear that it is a
stigmatic termination order.
9. It is settled position that if the order of termination is stigmatic in nature,
the same entails serious consequences on future prospects of the petitioner and
therefore the same ought to have been passed after holding a regular
departmental enquiry. In Arvind Malviya (supra), it is held as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 5/6/2026
8:04:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14127
6 WP. No. 1509 of 2018
“3) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the fact that the present petition is covered by the order
dated 25/4/2022 passed in WP No.23267/2019 (Omprakash Gurjar
(supra)), the present petition is allowed. The impugned order is
hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the
petitioner in service with 50% backwages within a period of 2 months
from the date of communication of the order. However, liberty is
granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh in
accordance with law, if so advised. The said order passed in W.P.
No.23267/2019 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case.”
10. The Division Bench of this Court, at Principal Seat, Jabalpur, in the case of
Rajesh Kumar Rathore vs. High Court of M.P. and another (W.P. No.18657
of 2018) vide order dated 23/11/2021 has held as under:-
“6. The short question of law involved in the present case is as to
whether the services of an employee under the Rules relating to
Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Contingency Paid (District
and Sessions Judge Establishment) Employees Rules, 1980, can be
terminated without conducting a departmental enquiry when an order
of termination casts stigma on the employee.
7. We are in full agreement with the legal position expounded in
various judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent. However, in the instant case, the question that arise for
consideration, as stated above, is squarely covered by the decision of
co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Krishna Pal Vs. District
& Sessions Judge, Morena (supra). In the present case, it is an
admitted fact that neither charge-sheet was issued nor departmental
enquiry was conducted and order of termination attributes dereliction
of duty amounting to misconduct, and hence, the same is clearly
stigmatic order. The petitioner’s services are admittedly governed
under the Rules of 1980. If the facts and situation of the present case
is examined in the context of the facts and situation of the case of
Krishna Pal (supra), it is found that this Court had taken a view (para5
of the said judgment) that Normally when the services of a temporary
employee or a probationer or contingency paid employee is brought
to an end by passing innocuous order due to unsatisfactory nature ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 5/6/2026
8:04:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:141277 WP. No. 1509 of 2018
service or on account of an act for which some action is taken, but the
termination is made in a simplicitor manner without conducting of
inquiry or without casting any stigma on the employee, the provisions
of Rule 9 of the Rules 1980 can be taken aid of. However, when the
termination is founded on acts of commission or omission, which
amounts to misconduct. Such an order casts stigma on the conduct,
character and work of the employee and hence, the principle of
natural justice, opportunity of hearing and inquiry is requirement of
law.
8. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of law, we are not
inclined to take a different view, therefore, in view of the aforesaid,
the impugned order dated 06.06.2017 (Annexure-P-6) and order dated
20.06.2018 (Annexure-P-9) are set aside.”
11. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.02.2024 passed in
WP.5856/2020 [Devkaran Patidar Vs. State of M.P. And others (Indore
Bench)] has also decided the similar issue in the following manner:
“4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
orders are illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that the respondent
no.4 without considering the provisions of 15.01, 15.02 and 16 of the
scheme according to which the respondent no.4, is not empowered to
terminate the service of the petitioner, and the aforesaid impugned
order Annexure-P/1 has been wrongly uphold. He further submits that
the respondents have acted in high handed manner and without
following the instructions/guidelines issued by the Higher
Authorities, issued the impugned termination order. Thus, the action
of the respondents is unjust and arbitrary. In the present case, neither
any charge-sheet has been issued against the petitioner nor any
enquiry has been conducted before passing of the impugned stigmatic
order. In such circumstances, he prays that the impugned orders be set
aside. He further relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the
case of Rahul Tripathi vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission,
Bhopal 2001 (3) MPLJ 616 and Prakash Chandra Kein vs. State
of M.P. and others 2010 (3) MPLJ 179.
5. The respondents have filed the reply and has submitted that a
number of complaints has been received against the petitioner. AfterSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 5/6/2026
8:04:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:141278 WP. No. 1509 of 2018
receiving the complaints a Committee was constituted for conducting
an enquiry against the petitioner and on the basis of the enquiry report
submitted by the Committee a show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner and after giving opportunity to the petitioner to file reply,
the respondent has terminated the services. In such circumstances, the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is working on the
post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and neither any charge-sheet has been
issued to the petitioner at any point of time nor any enquiry was
conducted with the participation of the petitioner. This Court has
passed the judgment in the case of Ramchandra vs. State of M.P. and
others decided in W.P. No.16572/2014 on 02/08/2017 and several
other writ petitions on the subject are under consideration before this
Court.
8. In the light of the aforesaid as no charge-sheet was issued to the
petitioner and no enquiry has been conducted, the impugned orders
dated 12.06.2017 (Annexure-P/1) and 27.08.2016 (Annexure P/2),
passed by the respondents deserves to be quashed and are
accordingly, quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the
petitioner in service; however a liberty is granted to proceed against
the petitioner in accordance with law, in case if need so arises in
future.”
12. The policy of the State Government dated 10.07.2007 provides for removal
of Aanganwadi Worker from services and the same clearly reflects that Project
Officer/other higher officer of department of Women & Child Development
cannot discontinue without holding an enquiry, relevant extract of which is
reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-
n& vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk ds in ls gVkus dh izfØ;k &
¼1½ ;fn vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk }kjk vkaxuokM+h dsUnz dk lapkyu
fu;ekuqlkj ugha fd;k tkrk gS vFkok muds }kjk vius dRkZO;ksa ,oa nkf;Roksa ds
fuogZu esa ykijokgh dh tkrh gS rks ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh@efgyk ,oa cky
fodkl ds vU; mPp vf/kdkjh }kjk vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks lquokbZSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 5/6/2026
8:04:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:141279 WP. No. 1509 of 2018
dk volj nsrs gq, tkap esa nks”kh ik;s tkus ij in ls i`Fkd fd;k tk
ldsxkA
13. Admittedly, no regular departmental enquiry has been conducted and
stigmatic termination order has been passed.
14. In light of aforesaid discussion, it is seen that no charge-sheet was issued
to petitioner and no regular departmental enquiry has been conducted and the
impugned stigmatic order has been passed.
15. Impugned order dated 17.09.2013 (Annexure P-3) is a non-speaking and
unreasoned order, the relevant part of which is quoted below for ready reference
and convenience:
**¼3½ fnukad 19-08-13 dks Jherh cfork ‘kekZ dk i= çLrqr gqvk ftlds }kjk
mUgksus fjdkMZ dh ekax dh gS vkSj in ij vkus dh lwpuk nh
vr% mijksä rhu fcUnqvksa ij ftyk dk;ZØe vf/kdkjh efgyk ,oa cky fodkl
Xokfy;j ls iw.kZ uLrh ds lkFk fopkj foe’kZ dj Jherh cfork ‘kekZ ls ;Fkksfpr
le; esa lUrks”k dkjd mÙkj izkIr u gksus ds dkj.k Jherh cfork ‘kekZ vkxauckMh
dk;ZdrkZ vkå dsUæ ihry dkj[kkus esa Ø01 ds in ls budh lsok;s lekIr dh
Js.kh esa fu:fir dh tkrh gSA lsok ls i`Fkd gh j[kk tkrk gSA
——————————————-lsok;s lekIr A**
16. From perusal of the punishment order issued by the Disciplinary Authority
dated 17.09.2013 (Annexure P-3), it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority while
passing an order imposing punishment upon the petitioner is exercising quasi
judicial power and even the quasi judicial order must be a speaking order. The
Disciplinary Authority must apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances
and record valid and justifiable reason and all grounds in support of its
conclusion.
17. On perusal of the punishment order, it does not appear to be a speaking
one.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 5/6/2026
8:04:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14127
10 WP. No. 1509 of 2018
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of
this Court, including in Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & NSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 5/6/2026
8:04:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1412711 WP. No. 1509 of 2018
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″.
21. 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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 5/6/2026
8:04:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14127
12 WP. No. 1509 of 2018
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”.
22. As disciplinary authority has issued a non-speaking and unreasoned order,
therefore, absence of reason in the punishment order cannot be compensated by
disclosure of reason in the appellate order, therefore, the argument of counsel for
respondent is not sustainable that the appellate order is reasoned and speaking
order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd vs Union
Of India & Ors; (2010) 13 SCC 427 has held as under:-
“41. In M/s Kranti Associates (supra), this Court after considering
various judgments formulated certain principles in para 51 of the
judgment which are set out below
a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record
reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support
of its conclusions.
c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the
wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it
must also appear to be done as well.
d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on
any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi judicial or
even administrative power.
e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by
the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding
extraneous considerations.
f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a
component of a decision making process as observingSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 5/6/2026
8:04:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1412713 WP. No. 1509 of 2018
principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even
by administrative bodies.
g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by
superior Courts.
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
life blood 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.
j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial
accountability and transparency.
k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough
about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to
know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of
precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and
succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons’ is not
to be equated with a valid decision making process.
m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non
of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in
decision making not only makes the judges and decision
makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to
broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial
Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).
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 Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994)
19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 5/6/2026
8:04:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1412714 WP. No. 1509 of 2018
Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to
Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which
requires, “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for
judicial decisions”.
o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role
in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for
development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the
decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “Due
Process”.
42. In the instant case the appellate order contains reasons.
However, absence of reasons in the original order cannot be
compensated by disclosure of reason in the appellate order.
43. In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna and
others,(1986) 4 SCC 537, it has been held:
“……after the blow suffered by the initial decision, it is difficult
to contemplate complete restitution through an appellate
decision. Such a case is unlike an action for money or recovery
of property, where the execution of the trial decree may be
stayed pending appeal, or a successful appeal may result in
refund of the money or restitution of the property, with
appropriate compensation by way of interest or mesne profits
for the period of deprivation. And, therefore, it seems to us,
there is manifest need to ensure that there is no breach of
fundamental procedure in the original proceeding, and to avoid
treating an appeal as an overall substitute for the original
proceeding.”
44. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court quashes the show cause
notice as also the order dated 19.03.2008 passed by the third
respondent. In view of that, the appellate order has no legs to stand
and accordingly is quashed.
23. In view of the above discussion and the circumstances of the case, I am left
with no choice but to set aside the punishment order dated 17.09.2013 (Annexure
P-3), appeal rejection order dated 06.08.2016 (Annexure P-2) and the order
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 5/6/2026
8:04:19 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14127
15 WP. No. 1509 of 2018
passed in Second Appeal dated 31.05.2017 (Annexure P-1) and accordingly, I do
so.
24. Consequently, respondents are directed to reinstate the services of
petitioner extending all consequential benefits to her, except back-wages on the
principle of no work no pay, within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order. However, liberty is granted to the
respondents to take action against petitioner, in accordance with law.
25. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands
disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 5/6/2026
8:04:19 PM
