Delay In Relaying Information Sought By High Court Amounts To Misconduct | Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Penalty Against District Court Clerk
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, and Justice Vinay Saraf dismissed a writ petition challenging the findings of departmental misconduct against a court employee. The Court upheld the modified disciplinary action imposed on the petitioner, holding that the charges against him were duly proved and that the punishment awarded was proportionate. The Court concluded that there was no procedural infirmity in the enquiry and therefore no scope for judicial interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petitioner, a court employee appointed as Process Writer and later posted as Executant Clerk in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deosar, District Singrauli, was suspended on 05.07.2016. The suspension followed his failure to timely submit mandated quarterly information concerning cases related to women, children, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable sections, in the prescribed Format B, required for presentation at the Chief Justice's Conference.
Initially, on 22.06.2016, a directive was issued to submit data on pending sensitive cases for the period 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2016. The petitioner collected the relevant information and forwarded it to the District Judge's office on 02.07.2016. Subsequently, the petitioner became aware on 05.07.2016 that the data had to be resubmitted in Format B. Allegedly unfamiliar with the format, the petitioner obtained guidance from colleagues and obtained approval from the in-charge judicial officer before resending the information via email, WhatsApp, and physically. Nonetheless, he was suspended for failing to meet the 05.07.2016 deadline.
A departmental enquiry followed. The disciplinary authority—the District and Sessions Judge, Singrauli—served a charge-sheet, received the petitioner’s reply, and appointed an enquiry officer. Witnesses were examined on both sides, and the enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority. The petitioner was found guilty and penalized on 01.06.2018 by way of withholding two increments with cumulative effect.
The petitioner appealed under Rule 23 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. The appellate authority modified the punishment to withholding two increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner subsequently filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging both the disciplinary and appellate orders.
The petitioner argued that the charges amounted only to negligence, not misconduct, under the 1966 Rules. He stated that the information was submitted by 06.07.2016 and contended that his unfamiliarity with Format B should not have been held against him.
In support, the petitioner cited Union of India & Ors. vs. J. Ahmad, 1979 (2) SCC 286, where the Supreme Court held that negligence or errors of judgment do not amount to misconduct unless accompanied by ill motive.
The respondents, representing the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, contended that the petitioner had repeatedly failed to comply with clear and urgent directions to provide information in a required format. They submitted that the petitioner was granted full opportunity to defend himself and that due process was followed at all stages.
The department produced several witnesses to establish that the petitioner received multiple reminders via email, phone, and in person, and was offered assistance, but still failed to comply by the specified deadline.
The enquiry officer concluded that the petitioner’s actions constituted misconduct rather than mere negligence. This conclusion was accepted by the disciplinary and appellate authorities. The High Court, examining the matter under Article 226, reviewed whether principles of natural justice and due process were followed but declined to reappreciate evidence or substitute the findings of the disciplinary authorities.
The Bench stated in clear terms: "The charges against the petitioner were duly proved in the departmental enquiry and the defense put up by the petitioner is not acceptable."
It further recorded: "The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, wherein he considered the entire evidence and found proved the charges against the petitioner, are not erroneous. The findings have been recorded on the basis of material available on record and the same cannot be subject matter of judicial review."
The Court observed the limited scope of interference under Article 226, stating: "This Court can examine only the procedure adopted during the enquiry, adherence to the principles of natural justice and cannot act as an appellate authority."
Referring to State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Prabhudayal Grover, AIR 1996 SC 320, and Dr. Yogiraj Sharma Vs. State of M.P., 2016 (1) MPLJ 537, the Court reiterated that it would not ordinarily interfere where findings are based on some evidence and arrived at following due process.
Quoting from the cited precedents, the Court stated: "Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion... it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence."
The Bench noted the extensive departmental evidence showing repeated efforts to obtain the required data from the petitioner, and his continued inaction despite those efforts. Witnesses corroborated the failure to submit the report by the deadline despite calls, emails, and personal outreach.
Regarding the petitioner’s defense of lack of knowledge of Format B, the Court remarked that the petitioner admitted in his own statement that he was aware of the requirement by 04.07.2016, and yet did not submit the information until 06.07.2016, one day after he had already been suspended.
The Bench rejected the applicability of J. Ahmad to this case, stating: "The facts of the instant case are entirely different... the allegation against the petitioner was that despite repetitive instructions by the office of District Judge, the petitioner did not comply with the directions promptly and failed to supply the information in proper format in time."
The Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly and lawfully. It held: "We uphold the findings of the misconduct as well as the order of modification of the penalty passed by appellate authority and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect is just and proper."
The Court directed: "With the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Shri Saket Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri Shobhitaditya, Advocate
Case Title: Nand Kishore Choudhary vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: MPHC-JBP:26126
Case Number: W.P. No. 28403 of 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Justice Vinay Saraf
[Read/Download order]
