CMD, Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kchetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd & Ors. vs Shrimohan Sharma

Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

This Intra Court Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, has been filed against the order dated 23.03.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No.5188/2017.

Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that a show cause notice dated 05.10.2009 was issued to respondent regarding certain irregularities which were allegedly committed by him during his posting in Karhal District Sheopur. The respondent filed his reply to the show cause notice. Considering the defence taken by respondent, appellants imposed minor penalty of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect as well as recovery of Rs.20,56,575/-. Against the said punishment order, respondent preferred W.P. No.121/2010. Similar type of punishment orders were also passed against various other persons. Writ petition filed by respondent i.e. W.P. No.121/2010 was decided by order dated 18.01.2010 and the appellate Authority was directed to consider and decide the appeal preferred by petitioner/respondent herein, by passing a detailed and speaking order. Thereafter, the appellate Authority by order dated 09.05.2011 affirmed the finding of guilt recorded against the respondent and interfered with the punishment order and instead of stoppage of two increment without cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.20,56,575/-, awarded punishment of censure and recovery of Rs.14,17,250/-. Said order was challenged by respondent by filing W.P. No.6214/2011. During pendency of said writ petition, respondent preferred another writ petition i.e. W.P. No.5188/2017 against the same order by making a categorical declaration that no other matter except W.P. No.5188/2017 is pending in any other Court of law or Tribunal. Both the writ petitions were listed before learned Single Judge on 23.03.2026. W.P. No.6214/2011 was withdrawn, whereas W.P. No.5188/2017 was decided on merits. Learned Single Judge in paragraph No.2 of the order has observed as under :

W.P. No.5188/2017 was filed by suppressing the fact that W.P. No.6214/2011 is already pending against the same order. A false Thus, it is clear that W.P. No.5188/2017, which has been allowed by the impugned order, was based on a false declaration. However, in the present case, W.P. No.6214/2011 and W.P. No.5188/2017 were listed on the same day and they were taken up analogously. It appears that no return was filed by appellants in W.P. No.6214/2011 but return was filed in W.P. No.5188/2017. The aforesaid fact persuaded the learned Single Judge to decide W.P. No.5188/2017 in place of W.P. No.6214/2011.

In the considered opinion of this Court since W.P. No.5188/2017 was subsequent in time and was containing false declaration and since the second writ petition challenging the same cause of action and order was not maintainable, therefore, the learned Single Judge should not have entertained that writ petition and should have treated the return filed in W.P. No.5188/2017 as return in W.P. No.6214/2011.

Be that whatever it may be.

One thing is clear that at least W.P. No.6214/2011 was maintainable as it was filed against the order passed by the appellate Authority. The misadventurous act of respondent in filing second writ petition with a false declaration has also been condemned by learned Single Judge and a cost of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed against him. So far as false declaration given by respondent in W.P. No.5188/2017 with regard to non-pendency of any litigation against the impugned order is concerned, it amounts to suppression of material fact.

It is well established principle of law that in case if petitioner is found to be guilty of suppressing material fact, then he would not be entitled for equitable relief and the High Court can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. However, in the present case, merely because second writ petition i.e. W.P. No.5188/2017 was filed with a false declaration, that would not have resulted in dismissal of W.P. No.6214/2011 (1st petition) also because there was no false declaration in the said writ petition.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that since learned Single Judge has already imposed a cost of Rs.50,000/- on the respondent for his misadventurous act of filing second writ petition during pendency of first writ petition, coupled with the fact that even if second writ petition is dismissed, still the Court would have been under an obligation to decide W.P. No.6214/2011 on merits, therefore, no interference in that regard is required.

It is submitted by counsel for appellant that since lot of punishment orders were passed against various persons and lot of appeals were pending, therefore, appellate Authority thought it appropriate to appoint a Committee to consider the facts and circumstances of each case and only on the basis of recommendation of such Committee, the final order was passed by the appellate Authority, and the punishment order was interfered and lessor punishment was awarded.

However, counsel for appellant could not point out any statutory provision to the effect that appellate Authority had jurisdiction to delegate its appellate jurisdiction. It is always expected that if an appeal is filed, then the appellate Authority must apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and must decide all the grounds raised by the appellant. The learned Single Judge has reproduced the order of appellate Authority in the order under challenge. From plain reading of said order, it is clear that appellate Authority had blindly accepted the recommendation made by the Committee constituted by him and passed the impugned order dated 09.05.2011. It is clear from the order dated 09.05.2011 that appellate Authority did not apply its mind at all.

The Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Trustees v. Indore Composite (P) Ltd., reported in, (2018) 8 SCC 443 has held as under :

Time and again, this Court has emphasised on the courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case which must contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by the learned counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion. It is really unfortunate that the Division Bench failed to keep in mind these principles while disposing of the writ petition. Such order, in our view, has undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties because it deprived them to know the reasons as to why one party has won and other has lost. We can never countenance the manner in which such order was passed by the High Court which has compelled us to remand the matter to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits.

In the light of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Division Bench of the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits in accordance with law keeping in view our observations made supra. We, however, make it clear that we have refrained from making any observation on merits of the controversy having formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court for the reasons mentioned above. The High Court would, therefore, decide the writ petition, uninfluenced by any of our observations, strictly in accordance with law."

Reasons are the heat-beat of an order and only from the reasons, it can be deciphered whether appellate Authority had applied its mind or not.

In the present case, it is the case of appellant that since lot of appeals were pending involving similar questions, therefore, appellate Authority was unable to decide and apply its mind to the facts of each and every case and under these circumstances, he had delegated his power to a Committee.

As already pointed out, counsel for appellant could not point out any provision relating to delegation of appellate powers. On the contrary, it is the case of appellants themselves that appellate Authority was not is a position to apply its mind.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge did not commit any mistake by setting aside the order passed by the appellate Authority.

It is next contended by counsel for appellant that once learned Single Judge was of the view that the order passed by appellate Authority was bad in law on account of non application of mind, then he should have remanded the matter back to the appellate Authority.

Considered the submission made by counsel for appellant.

Appellants themselves have taken a stand that appellate Authority was not a position to apply its mind and, therefore, had delegated its power. Once the appellate Authority had already expressed its inability to apply its mind, then no useful purpose would have been served by remanding the matter once again to the appellate Authority.

Under these circumstances, if learned Single Judge has quashed the order and has not remanded the matter back, then no fault can be found in the said order.

Accordingly, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.