Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sukhbir Singh Raghuwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 5486 of 2014
SUKHBIR SINGH RAGHUWANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi, learned Senior Advocate alongwith
Shri Manish Gurjar, learned counsel petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Dixit, learned GA for the respondents/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 22/07/2025
Delivered on : 01/08/2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, comiing
on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind
Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is preferred against the order dated 14.07.2014 passed by
Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, by which the appeal
preferred against the order dated 21.07.2009 passed by the Collector for
stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was affirmed and
the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the
order dated 21.07.2009 passed by the Collector, whereby after remand
2
vide order passed by Commissioner dated 12.03.2008, the earlier order
of demoting the petitioner on the minimum of pay of the post of
Patwari that is Rs.3500/- was changed to stoppage of two increments
with cumulative effect.
2. The order of the Collector has been assailed on the ground that it
is without authority of law as the appointing authority of the petitioner
was Sub Divisional Officer and the Collector, who was Appellate
Authority has wrongly exercised the powers and had passed the
impugned order, thus, the impugned order as well as the appellate order
are without jurisdiction and therefore, are liable to be quashed.
3. While placing reliance in the matter of Surjit Ghosh Vs.
Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and
Others reported in (1995) 2 SCC 474; it was argued that the authority
to whom powers are vested can only exercise the said powers and even
the higher authority cannot exercise the powers of
competent/subordinate authority, thus, when the powers of inflicting
punishment on the petitioner was available only with the Sub
Divisional Officer, the Collector, who was the Appellate Authority
could not have exercised the said powers.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the
Sub Divisional Officer is appointing authority as well as disciplinary
3
authority of the petitioner and has powers to inflict major penalty but
since powers have been exercised by the Appellate Authority, which
runs contrary to settled principles of law, therefore, impugned orders
are bad and are liable to the set aside.
5. It was further submitted that the earlier ten charges were leveled
against the petitioner but the Collector while passing a fresh order after
remand had found only charge No.2 partly proved, therefore inflicting
of major penalty more so when only a single charge was held to be
partly proved, was also contrary to the record as a petitioner had just
obeyed the order of the Tehsildar, his senior officer, and had submitted
a report, therefore, there was no fault on the part of the petitioner, as he
was just implementing orders of his Senior, thus, infliction of said
penalty was bad in law.
6. Learned Senior Counsel has also argued that the Enquiry Officer
vide his report dated 28.03.2007 had found all the ten charges to be
proved, but since the provisions of Rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 were not followed by
the enquiry officer and no opportunity of examining the witnesses and
opportunity for cross-examination was given to the petitioner,
objections were raised by the petitioner by way of reply to the notice
issued by the Collector alongwith the enquiry report but ignoring the
said objections vide order dated 31.05.2007 the petitioner was inflicted
4
with a penalty of placing him in minimum of pay scale of the cader
with cumulative effect for ever, which when challenged before the
Appellate Authority was remitted back to the Collector for fresh
adjudication vide order dated 12.03.2008, wherein it was accepted by
the Commissioner that the Sub Divisional Officer was the appointing
authority of the petitioner and the Collector was the Appellate
Authority, but after remand the matter was again re-heard by the
Collector and this time the Collector only found issue No.2 to be partly
proved, but the factual record was totally ignored that while submitting
the report petitioner was just following the orders of his immediate
superior officer, thus, was not at all at fault and inflicted a penalty of
stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, which is bad in law
and when the said order was challenged before the Commissioner, the
same was affirmed.
7. Learned Senior Counsel has thus, submitted that the orders
passed by the Collector as well as the Commissioner being in
derogation of the settled preposition of law that the Sub Divisional
Officer was only having powers of inflicting any penalty over the
petitioner and the Collector being Appellate Authority was not
empowered to inflict any of the major penalties were not sustainable.
Thus, the orders passed by the Collector as well as Commissioner on
this count alone deserves to be quashed.
5
8. Learned Senior Counsel while placing reliance on Notification
No.11429-CR-635-VII-N.2, published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra,
dated 9-10-1959 and Notification No.13691-CR-770-VII-N(Rules),
published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated 01-01-1960, has
argued that in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of
Section 22 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No. 20
of 1959), and in supersession of all previous notifications on the
subject, the State Government had notified Sub Divisional Officers to
exercise powers of a Collector under Sub-section (2) of Section 57,
Sub-section (5) of Section 59, Section 89, Sub-section (2) of Section
104 and Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Code, and therefore,
when the order of appointment of Patwari lay with Sub Divisional
Officer he is only having powers to suspend or dismiss him from the
service but as the Collector has exercised the powers of Sub Divisional
Officer, the said order is bad in law.
9. Per contra, Shri Ravindra Dixit, learned Govt. Advocate while
placing reliance in the matter of Union of India and Others Vs. P.
Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610; and in the matter of
Santosh Sondhia Vs. State of M.P. and another reported in 2023(2)
MPLJ 404; has argued that the High Courts in exercise of its powers
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot venture into re-
appreciation of the evidence or interfere with conclusion in the enquiry
6
proceedings if the same are conducted in accordance with law or go
into reliability/adequacy of the evidence or interfered if there is some
legal evidence on which findings are based or correct error of fact,
however grave it may be, or go into proportionality of punishment
unless it shooks conscious of the Court, but can only consider whether
the inquiry held by the competent authority was in accordance with the
procedure established by law, and the principles of natural justice,
whether irrelevant or extraneous considerations and/or exclusion of
admissible or material evidence or admission of inadmissible evidence
have influenced the decision rendering it vulnerable and further can
interfere where the finding is wholly arbitrary and capricious or are
based on no evidence, which no reasonable man could ever arrived at
and in the instant case the Collector on a fact finding enquiry had found
issue No.2 partly proved, which was affirmed by the Commissioner in
the appeal, this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority and re-
appreciate the evidence, which is unsustainable. Thus, it is submitted
that the present petition being devoid of merits be dismissed.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. Notification No.11429-CR-635-VII-N.2, published in the
Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra, dated 1-10-1959 and Notification No.13691-
CR-770-VII-N(Rules), published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated
01-01-1960 had notified the Sub Divisional Officer to exercise the
7
powers of the Collector under certain provisions of MPLRC. For
reference the said notifications are quoted herein below:-
NOTIFICATIONS
[1] [No.11429-CR-635-VII-N.2, dated 1-10-1959, published in M.P.
Rajpatra dated 9th October 1959, and Notification No. 13691-CR-770-
VII-N (Rules), published in M.P. Rajpatra dated 1st January. 1960].- In
exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the
M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959) and in supersession of
all previous notifications on the subject the State
Government hereby directs that all Sub-Divisional Officers shall
exercise powers of a Collector under Sub-section (2) of Section 57,
Sub-section (5) of Section 59, Section 87, Sub-section (2) of Section
104 and Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Code, within their
respective Jurisdictions.”
12. Section 104(2) of the Code prior to amendment read as under:-
“The Collector shall appoint one or more patwaris to each patwari
circle for the maintenance and correction of land records and for such
other duties as the State Government may prescribe.”
13. As per the abovementioned notification, the powers of the
Collector so far as it relates to Section 104(2) of the Code has been
conferred upon the Sub Divisional Officer, which clearly ment that he
had the power to appoint a Patwari, thus, will have power to suspend or
dismissal.
14. Section 16 of M.P. General Law Act, 1957 lays down that unless
a different intention appears the authority having power to make
appointment shall also have power to suspend or dismiss, hence the
power of appointment of a Patwari includes power of suspension or
dismissal and since the State Government had delegated Collector’s
power of Section 104(2) under Section 22 to Sub Divisional Officer,
8
therefore, after delegation of powers the Sub Divisional Officer only
had the authority to appoint, suspend or dismiss a Patwari under
Section 104(2).
15. Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Kala Bai Vs. State of
M.P. reported in 2011(1) MPLJ 547; has observed as under:-
“The Sub Divisional Officer has been conferred powers of the Collector
to appoint a Patwari in view of the provisions of Section 22 (2) of the
Code and the Notification dated 1-10-1959 published in the M.P.
Gazette on 9-10-1959 and as a consequence thereof he also has the
power to remove a Patwari from service. That there is no conflict
between the decision rendered in the case of Vishwanath Prasad v.
Board of Revenue 1964 MPLJ SN 38 and Mangilal v. State of M.P. and
Ors., 1995 RN 67 (DB), as the factual matrix on the basis of which the
two judgments were rendered were totally different and that the
Division Bench in the case of Mangilal (supra), on that count has
rightly distinguished the case of Vishwanath Prasad (supra). The Single
Bench in the case of Vinod Kumar Khare v. State of M.P. and Ors. 2008
(4) MPLJ SN 44, Ashok Kumar Khare v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P.
No. 7785/2003, decided on 10-1-2005 and Phulloo Ram Kol v. State of
M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 8777/2003, decided on 25-9-2008 are hereby
overruled while judgment in the case Ravindra Kumar Gupta v. State of
M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 10863/2009, decided on 5-8-2010, is hereby
affirmed and approved.”
16. The Commissioner while setting aside the earlier orders passed
by the Collector dated 31.05.2007 and its order dated 12/20.03.2008
has also found that the powers of appointing Patwari lay with the Sub
Divisional Officer but since the right of preferring an appeal under
under Section 23 of MPCCA Rules, 1966 have not been wasted since
the order of the Collector could be challenged before the
Commissioner, the matter was remitted back to the Collector for fresh
adjudication, but while doing so, had overlooked settled legal provision
9
that infliction of penalty by the Appellate Authority acting as a
disciplinary authority is impermissible.
17. It is true that when an authority higher than the disciplinary
authority itself imposes the punishment, the order of punishment suffers
from no illegality when no appeal is provided to such authority,
however, when an appeal is provided to the higher authority concerned
against the order of the disciplinary authority or of a lower authority
and the higher authority passes an order of punishment, the employee
concerned is deprived of the remedy of appeal which is a substantive
right given to him by the Rules/Regulations and an employee cannot be
deprived of his substantive right and though the order of the Collector
could have been agitated in appeal before the Commissioner, who was
the next higher authority but the fact remains that the appointing
authority of petitioner was Sub Divisional Officer and therefore, there
was no occasion for the Collector to have passed the said order.
18. In a converse judgment this Court in the matter of Devidayal Jha
Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2013(3) MPLJ 19; had held that
departmental enquiry initiated against a Patwari, who was appointed by
the Collector and consequence thereof was dismissed by Sub Divisional
Officer by way of penalty, the order of Sub Divisional Officer was held
not to be sustainable in the eyes of law, as he was not the appointing
authority or a disciplinary authority of Patwari, thus, the order passed
10
by the Collector while inflicting a major penalty of stoppage of two
increments with cumulative effect over the petitioner was not held to be
sustainable.
19. Accordingly, the order passed by the Collector dated 21.07.2009
being without jurisdiction is hereby set aside. Resultantly, the order
dated 14.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner affirming the order of
the Collector is also hereby set aside.
20. Since this Court has set aside the orders of Collector on the
ground of competency, it is not dwelling upon the merits of the
controversy.
21. So far as the judgment cited by the counsel for the respondents
are concerned, since they are based upon merits of the matter, which
this Court has not gone into, therefore, are not applicable to the present
case.
22. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition stands allowed and
disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHASHANK
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
SHASH
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=36b486bb0d381b950e435ec09e
066bc6b58cb947c1474b7dc349a1cf27ea
a2ce, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
ANK
serialNumber=E60A9BBFC39E0EE500EAA
DE1E0B3B8565CB3A7DC9F5CD048197DF
0FF3149AE58, cn=NEETU SHASHANK
Date: 2025.08.01 17:32:21 +05'30'